A Local Counsel’s Duties and Responsibilities

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

Are there potential pitfalls in accepting a role as a “mailbox”, or a local counsel whose role is to merely facilitate  an out-of-state lawyer’s working on a pro hac vice basis in your  jurisdiction?   Upon being retained, most lawyers asked to serve as local counsel will advise national counsel that they will do as much or as little as national counsel requires.  Are there instances, however, when doing too little is not doing enough?   Local counsel’s duties and responsibilities are governed by (1) first and foremost,  referring out-of-state counsel’s requirements (2) local counsel’s obligation to the court and (3) the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  In most circumstances, local counsel has no difficulty navigating among … Continue reading →

Bring That Lawsuit….What Have You Got To Lose?

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

In its January 2018 Legal Bulletin, USI Affinity, which markets Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance to members of the New York State Bar Association, discusses the sharp increase in settlements of cases alleging Traumatic Brain Injury (“TBI”) and Spinal Fusion Surgery due, in large part, to the perceived high liability exposure presented by these types of claims and the difficulties inherent in defending them. The Challenge of Defending Against a TBI Claim In an article prepared by Andrew R. Jones and Nir Gadon of Furman Kornfield & Brennan LLP for the Legal Bulletin, the authors discuss how notoriously difficult it can be to defend a TBI claim because the … Continue reading →

Preparing Your Client for SDNY Mediation

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

The growth of the SDNY mediation program increases the likelihood that a matter docketed there will be referred to mediation. There is a wealth of good information on the SDNY’s website that can help practitioners prepare their clients for participating in ADR in the court-annexed voluntary mediation program. The answer to many questions that a client may have concerning the SDNY mediation “experience” is likely provided on the court’s Mediation/ADR website.  Therefore, even if the practitioner has never mediated a case in the court’s mediation program, there is great deal of helpful information on the court’s website that explains what is involved and how the process … Continue reading →

GMOs And “100% Natural” Found Consistent In Food Class Action

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

In the absence of any legitimate science suggesting that GMOs are unsafe, the anti-GMO movement is seeking to promote “alternative facts” in a judicial setting and achieve, through deceptive trade practice and tort litigation, what they have failed to achieve in a scientific or regulatory setting. The Hon. Richard G. Stearns recently dismissed a federal Massachusetts consumer class action, Lee v. Conagra Brands, Inc., 1:17-cv-11042 (D.Mass October 25, 2017),  contending that Wesson vegetable oil was falsely labeled “100% natural”  because the manufacturer extracted from genetically modified corn, soybean and rapeseed.  In his decision,  Judge Stearns opined that:  “Because Wesson’s “100% natural” label conforms to … Continue reading →

Major U.S. Government Report Acknowledges That People Cause Climate Change

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

On November 3, 2017, the United States issued an exhaustive scientific report, titled the “Climate Science Special Report”, which acknowledges that human activity is a major cause of the temperature rise that has occurred over the past century.  The climate science report is part of a Congressionally mandated review that occurs every four years known as the National Climate Assessment.  The National Climate Assessment represents the findings and analyses of hundreds of experts and scientists from federal agencies, national laboratories, universities, and the private sector. The final work product was peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. The National Oceanic and … Continue reading →

Defending Ecosystem Damage Claims: A Primer

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

Claims alleging natural resource or ecological damage are on the rise, but the standards governing the performance of ecological risk assessments are  not nearly as developed as the standards used for evaluating human health risks.  Consequently, the legal defenses to natural resource or ecological damage claims are not as well-developed as the defenses to claims of risk to human health.   Fortunately for the environmental defense bar, Carol M. Wood, a partner at King & Spalding; Judi L. Durda, a vice-president and toxicologist/ecologist at Integral Consulting; and Stephen Rahaim, chief environmental counsel at E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, have written an excellent primer for navigating through … Continue reading →

Climate Change, Ecosystem Damage Claims and the Radicalization of the Court System

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

The use of the court system to address what is at its root  a political and social problem is not only misguided, but dangerous. I have discussed in prior articles the danger implicit in using public nuisance law to effect political change. California plaintiffs in the current climate change litigation are effectively blaming a handful of large industrial concerns for the evolution of our present-day civilization when the blame, if blame is even the appropriate term, should be collectively shared by countless other “responsible” parties.  At a time when USEPA is scrubbing from its website any and all references to climate change or global … Continue reading →

Connecticut Asbestos Court Gives Short Shrift To Daimler AG v. Bauman

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

In a decision, dated September 7, 2017, in Rice v. American Talc Co., No. FBT CV-15-6053658-S (9/7/17), the Hon. Barbara N. Bellis of the Connecticut Superior Court of Fairfield at Bridgeport, who presides over the asbestos docket, ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman did not preclude Connecticut from exercising specific jurisdiction over Milwhite, Inc., a Texas-based talc mining company.  To better understand the court’s ruling, the undisputed facts are set forth briefly here: Ernest Rice, Jr, plaintiff’s decedent, worked at American Standard’s plumbing fixtures plant in Connecticut from 1962-1968 and alleges exposure to asbestos-containing talc (and … Continue reading →

Methodology “Mishmash” Dooms Plaintiff Experts in Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Case

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

In a decision, dated September 25, 2017, a Philadelphia state trial court excluded the opinions of plaintiff’s experts, Mr. Sean Fitzgerald and Dr. Ronald Gordon, on the ground that they did not use generally accepted methodology in forming their scientific opinions.  The case, Sally Brandt v. The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. et. al. (Court of Commons Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, September 25, 2017), was being carefully watched because it was alleged that J&J’s cashmere bouquet talcum powder caused, not ovarian cancer–the disease entity at issue in the J&J talcum powder cases pending in St. Louis and elsewhere–but mesothelioma, which affects the … Continue reading →

Using Public Nuisance Law To Effect A Political Outcome

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

The classic definition of public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with right common to the general public” Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 273 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir.2001).  However, the utilization of public nuisance  theories in non-traditional product liability and environmental litigation, if given sustenance by the courts, threatens to generate multi-billion dollar exposure for corporate defendants. Remarkably, in many public nuisance cases, the defendant’s conduct  was proper and the product lawfully marketed and sold. It is partly for this reason that public nuisance has been described by various legal scholars and commentators as a “wilderness of law”, “an impenetrable … Continue reading →