Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief challenging attempts by the trial bar to reduce or eliminate the legal requirement that a plaintiff prove a defendant actually caused his or her injury and urging the court to ensure that legal rules applied to asbestos and other toxic tort cases are consistent with well-established tort law, sound science and good policy. This case is an appeal of a trial court decision which permitted a witness to testify that any exposure to a hazardous substance in excess of background levels is a substantial contributing factor in the development of mesothelioma. This litigation is important to manufacturers because loose expert testimony standards often result in jury verdicts that are out of touch with sound science and tort principles. The NAM’s brief argued that a plaintiff’s experts must demonstrate, through a competent scientific assessment, that the plaintiff received a dose sufficient to cause the disease at issue and that a trial judge should not perform the role of experts, including assisting the jury in determining how much exposure from a particular workplace event is enough. In a win for manufacturers, the court held that any exposure to a hazardous material like asbestos is insufficient to prove that the exposure caused an injury.