The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently emphasized the requirement of expert opinion in an important class of premises liability cases – namely, those in which the plaintiff alleges that negligent design, construction, or maintenance created a dangerous condition. The case is Yanku v.
Historically, professional sports has not been viewed as a field rich in opportunities for litigation (Flood v. Kuhn notwithstanding). Over the past few decades, however, there has been a substantial increase sports-related litigation, which in turn has provided ample opportunities for experts to assist both plaintiffs and defendants.
The Kansas Supreme Court recently struck down a $250,000 statutory cap on noneconomic damages in all personal injury cases, holding that the statute violated the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Kansas Constitution. Hilburn v. Enerpipe, http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2019/20190614/112765.pdf (6/14/2019). In doing so, the court reversed a 7-year-old precedent, Miller v.
In Azmat v. Bauer, http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2016-SC-000560-DG.pdf, the Kentucky Supreme Court addressed an unusual but interesting issue concerning the unauthorized practice of law in the “next friend” context.
The full caption of the case is Sameena Azmat, as Mother and Next Friend of Nausher Azmat v. George W. Bauer, MD et al. The court explained this type of lawsuit as follows:
Last week I wrote about the FDA’s decision to ban surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The FDA took this action only after tens of thousands of lawsuits were filed to recover for injuries caused by transvaginal mesh, 4 years of heightened FDA surveillance of transvaginal mesh complications, more than 2 years that the FDA gave the manufacturers to produce sufficient evidence that the benefits of transvaginal mesh repair of POP outweigh the risks, and an additional year for the FDA to determine that the manufacturers had not produced the required evidence.
The FDA’s announcement of the ban is at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/default.htm:
Several thousand lawsuits are pending in state courts around the country in which the plaintiffs claim that the weed killer Roundup caused them to develop cancer – specifically, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. About 800 such cases brought in federal courts have been consolidated as multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the management of Judge Vince Chhabria.
Many personal injury cases involve traumatic brain injury (TBI) cause by a closed head injury. The severity of TBI can vary quite widely, with a correspondingly wide range of damages. See generally https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/traumatic-brain-injury/symptoms-causes/syc-20378557.
On December 5, 2018 a class action lawsuit was filed against Pacific Gas & Electric – Burnett v. PG&E Corporation, https://www.classaction.org/media/burnett-et-al-v-pg-and-e-corporation-et-al.pdf. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint summarize the plaintiffs’ allegations as follows:
This case points up the extreme care and attention to detail that a plaintiff’s attorney must exercise in reviewing an expert’s affidavit in opposition to summary judgment. The case is Fernandez v. Alexander (Calif. Ct.
