Toxic Torts

March 14, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editors: Anne McLeod and Natalie Holden
New Developments
Precluding a Second Bite at the Apple; Federal District Court Grants Summary Judgment on Basis of Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
By Tierra Jones

In the interest of justice and courtroom efficiency, res judicata aims to prevent parties

…

On October 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri reversed a $72 million judgment that was previously rendered against Johnson & Johnson, relying on a United States Supreme Court decision that was issued earlier this year. In June, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowed the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in Bristol Myers Squib Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), holding that that each plaintiff in a multi-plaintiff case must establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant for his or her individual claim. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the plaintiff’s verdict that was issued in February 2016 in Estate of Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, No. ED104580. 

June 9, 2017
New Developments
Lung Cancer Without Asbestosis? The Effects of Smoking
By Mark Zellmer

In the medical and scientific literature, a finding of asbestosis is clear evidence that asbestos at least contributed to cause a person’s lung cancer. Many medical experts regard a finding of asbestosis as essential to any finding that asbestos

…

April 10, 2017
New Developments
I Like It, But Do I Trust It? Drivers Weigh In on Autonomous Vehicle Technology
By Shannon Peters

The American Automobile Association (AAA) recently released the results of a survey of American drivers which yielded an interesting conclusion:  Americans want autonomous vehicle (AV) technologies in their next vehicle, but they

…

In November 2015, the Madison County Circuit Court denied a motion by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) to dismiss an asbestos case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that Ford’s “substantial” business activities in the State of Illinois were such that it was at home in the state and subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Jeffs v. Anco Insulations, Inc. et al., No. 15-L-533 (Cir. Ct. Mad. Co. 2015). In February, the Fifth District Appellate Court issued an order denying Ford’s petition for leave to appeal the Circuit Court’s decision pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306. A few months later, the Illinois Supreme Court granted Ford’s motion for a supervisory order with the Illinois Supreme Court under Rule 383, and ordered the Fifth District to hear the appeal. On December 14, the Fifth District heard oral arguments in the appeal of the Madison County Circuit Court’s decision in Jeffs v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 5-15-0529. The panel during oral argument included Justice Richard Goldenhersh, Justice James Moore, and Justice Thomas Welch.