Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed a coalition amicus brief in the South Carolina Supreme Court arguing that the risk of prejudice to defendants and due process concerns demand reversal of a trial court order consolidating two very different personal injury actions. In this case, a personal injury case brought by a cancer-free, young, living female with no known exposures to asbestos and a type of cancer that typically has no known external cause was erroneously consolidated for trial with a wrongful death case involving an elderly man who was occupationally exposed to asbestos, had various types of cancer, and allegedly died from a type of cancer that is associated with occupational exposure to asbestos. The coalition brief highlights the significant prejudices to tort defendants that flow from consolidation of dissimilar cases and the various ways courts across the country have banned or sharply limited consolidation. Not only does consolidation in such cases make trials more complex and less efficient, it invites juries to conflate evidence that is specific to each person and improperly return a punitive damages award based on the totality of the evidence heard. This case is important for all corporate defendants that want to ensure that South Carolina’s tort system is fair, protects defendants’ due process rights, and reflects sound policy. Soon after the NAM filed its amicus brief, plaintiffs settled the cases with J&J on favorable terms.