Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to ensure that 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 from a lower court decision that violated these principles by permitting liability based on questionable causation testimony, which is rejected by an increasing number of courts. This case is important because manufacturers should receive fair trials, based in sound legal rules that are consistent with well-established tort law. The NAM’s brief urged the court to clarify the evidence needed to satisfy the “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiff’s injury and reject the “any exposure” theory as a basis for asbestos causation because that theory does not meet the legal requirements for exposure liability, is unfair to defendants, and encourages excessive lawsuits. Unfortunately, the court denied the petition for review.