Recently, three asbestos cases, Lege, Chabaud, and Gaddy, have produced significant verdicts in Louisiana. Interestingly, Chabaud, a case of disputed asbestosis, produced the largest reported award for an asbestos personal injury claim in Louisiana history. Below is a brief summary of each of these matters.
Continue Reading Three Louisiana Juries Award Significant Verdicts in Asbestos Exposure Cases
The United States Supreme Court recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 807, the residual exception to the hearsay rule. These amendments significantly broaden the scope of the exception, which may lead to the admission of more hearsay statements under this rule.
Rule 807 provides for the admission of certain hearsay statements that are not admissible under the enumerated exceptions found in Rules 803 and 804. The previous version of the rule allowed for the admission of an otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement when the proponent could demonstrate that the statement was trustworthy, material, and more probative on the point for which it was offered than any other evidence the proponent could obtain through reasonable efforts, and that the admission of the statement was in the interests of justice.
Continue Reading Changes to Federal Rules of Evidence Broaden Hearsay Exception
What is blockchain technology? Technically precise definitions found on Google define it as “a distributed, decentralized, public ledger.” But, what does that mean? In its most basic and general form, simply think of blockchain technology as a new method of securely storing and processing data. At its core, blockchain technology is simply a new ledger technology that can store information.
On November 26, 2019, in Eileen Riebel, et al. v. 3M Company, et al. (Case No. 2015-L-002124), Cook County Judge Clare E. McWilliams granted a premises defendant’s personal jurisdiction motion in an asbestos matter finding that a contractual relationship between an out-of-state premises defendant and a decedent’s Illinois-based employer, by itself, was not sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant and did not meet the requisite minimum contacts with the state.
As the decade draws to an end and we approach the 2020’s, a popular social media trend called “the decade challenge” emerged. People are encouraged to post a photo of themselves from 2009 next to a recent photo of themselves now in 2019 to show how much they changed in a ten-year span. While I have refrained from willingly subjecting myself to that level of embarrassment—“styles change,” I tell myself—it is hard not to wonder what things will look like when people participate in the next decade challenge (2029). What will the technological innovations be that define the 2020’s? While it is difficult to predict, experts guarantee that blockchain technology will surely be one of them.
In Kardos v. Armstrong Pumps Inc. et al., 2019 PA Super 324, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled that where a party is given the opportunity to cross-examine a witness who later becomes unavailable due to his death, such testimony meets the hearsay exception and is admissible evidence.
Decedent Nicholas Kardos was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2016. On March 10, 2016, Mr. Kardos filed a lawsuit against numerous manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos products. In September 2016, Mr. Kardos executed an affidavit related to his work history and exposures to asbestos, after a site visit of a prior worksite. In October 2016, Mr. Kardos was deposed over three days, including cross-examination by defendants regarding his work history and exposures to asbestos containing products. Mr. Kardos passed away on November 3, 2016, before any party re-noticed the deposition.
Continue Reading Toxic Tort Monitor: Consider This When Afforded the Opportunity to Cross-Examine
In a consolidated appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently looked at the proximate cause standard for asbestos cases in Davis v. John Crane. 2019 WL 5558711 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019). In so doing, the appellate court declined to extend the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries to cases outside of a maritime tort context. While the Davis Court is not the first to analyze the DeVries decision, it is one of the first to hold that the case is exclusively limited to maritime torts.
Global Entrepreneurship Week Kansas City (GEWKC) runs November 18–22. Founded by the Kauffman Foundation eleven years ago, GEWKC is an opportunity to celebrate the innovators and job creators right here in Kansas City.
Husch Blackwell is proud to sponsor the Wrap-Up Celebration, aptly titled The Most Informative Party You’ll Ever Attend, on November 22 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM. In addition to providing a space to network with the attendees of GEWKC, Husch Blackwell attorneys Jenna Brofsky, George Khoukaz, and Liam Reilly will be in attendance to discuss how attendees can go about implementing the topics discussed throughout the week.
Continue Reading GEWKC and Husch Blackwell Celebrate Innovators with Wrap-Up Celebration
Recently, a Missouri Court of Appeals vacated a trial court’s award of $110 million in an ovarian cancer talc case, Slemp v. Johnson & Johnson, ED 106190 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019). This is the third talc verdict handed down by a St. Louis jury overturned on appeal based on lack of personal jurisdiction in light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 198 L. Ed. 2d 395 (2017) (“BMS”).
In August of 2019, following a seven-week bench trial, Judge Thad Balkman of Oklahoma’s Cleveland County District Court found biotech and healthcare company Johnson & Johnson responsible for sparking the state’s opioid epidemic through use of “disingenuous marketing schemes” used to drive the sale of its prescription painkillers. This ruling, which ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay the state of Oklahoma $572 million dollars in damages, resulted in the first ever successful lawsuit brought by the state against a defendant drug manufacturer stemming from a sole cause of action: public nuisance.
Continue Reading Toxic Tort Monitor: The Rising Trend of Public Nuisance in Large Scale Litigation
