Judicial Updates

June 7, 2016
New Developments
Driverless Cars and the Law
By Mark Pratzel

As driverless car technology evolves, questions continue to arise regarding its legal repercussions. Google, one of the leading forces behind autonomous cars, predicts that they will be available to the public by 2020.  Nissan and Tesla are also developing self-driven car technology.  And

…

May 2, 2016
New Developments
Northern District of Illinois Decision on Take-Home Exposure Liability has Limited Application
By Lindsay McClure-Hartman

The Northern District of Illinois in Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-C-10507, 2016 WL 930662 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016), recently granted a motion to dismiss on the basis that a product manufacturer

…

April 1, 2016
New Developments
Second Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Asbestos Defendant for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
By David Dean

In February 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of an out-of-state corporate defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction in an asbestos case, Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 14-4083

…

Earlier this week the Supreme Court issued its decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, affirming the Eight Circuit’s decision to not disturb a jury verdict against Tyson where the district court permitted the jury to draw an inference of class-wide liability based on representative or statistical evidence.

In a split decision announced earlier today (Utility Air Regulatory Group v.  Environmental Protection Agency, No. 12-1146, slip op. (June 23, 2014)) the United States Supreme Court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority in requiring sources of air pollution to comply with the Clean Air Act’s prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V major source permitting programs solely because of a source’s greenhouse gas emissions.  Further, the Court held that EPA is permitted to include greenhouse gas emissions in determining best available control technology (BACT) for sources that would be subject to PSD on the basis of emissions other than greenhouse gas emissions is a permissible interpretation of the Act.

In its 1984 decision in Hansome, the Missouri Supreme Court required an “exclusive causal connection” between the employee’s exercise of rights under the workers’ compensation statute and the adverse action the employee challenged.  No more.  Today, the Missouri Supreme Court swept Hansome aside and concluded the employee need only show that his exercise of rights under the workers’ compensation statute was a “contributing factor” to the adverse action. 

On July 29, 2006 a De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter departed the Sullivan, Missouri Regional Airport on a local skydiving flight.  Shortly after liftoff the right engine failed, the aircraft lost altitude, and crashed about ½ mile beyond the end of the runway. All on board died.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the right engine turbine blades failed but could not determine the cause of the failure.

Corporate clients defending class action lawsuits in state courts within the Eighth Circuit should take note of the recent decision Atwell v. Bos. Scientific Corp., 740 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir., 2013). One portion of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 allows for removal of “mass actions” from state court to federal court, often thought to be a more favorable venue for defendants in many instances.