For The Defense, December 2011 - DRI Today

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Attorneys defending motor carriers in lawsuits will want to note that if a court finds that a driver’s conduct did not rise to the level of culpable conduct warranting punitive damages, it will likely find the same for the carrier as well, even if a plaintiff asserts direct claims against the carrier. See, e.g., George, 708 S.E.2d at 208 (“because we conclude that [plaintiff] offered an insufficient forecast of evidence that [the driver] engaged in willful or wanton conduct, we likewise conclude that there was an insufficient forecast of evidence that Greyhound participated in or condoned [the driver’s conduct]”); Burke, 904 F.2d at 184 (“Since the evidence is insufficient to allow an award of punitive damage against [the driver], it follows that no punitive damages can be awarded vicariously against [the carrier].”). Think Globally
Q: Wal-Mart v. Dukes Who takes a stand on the cases that matter most to you, your firm and the defense bar? “Allowing hundreds of thousands (and now over a million) of individuals to file a singular, overly generalized claim clearly disregards the requirement of individualized proof. While we hope justice is served for anyone who faces discrimination, this enormous aggregation of truly disparate claims could not result in any kind of just and fair ruling.” —R. Matthew Cairns, Immediate Past President of DRI AAAAAmmerican American Electric El Power Company v. State Stat of Connecticut “Singling out these five utility companies is legally dubious and an ill-suited avenue for tackling global warming issues. The Supreme Court’s review of this case should reinforce and clarify existing precedent on the appropriate roles for the courts, legislature, and regulatory bodies in climate change issues.” —John Parker Sweeney, Second Vice President of DRI and Ocer Liaison to the Climate Change Litigation Task Force A: DRI—taking on the issues that matter. ■ American Electric Power Company v. State of Connecticut ■ AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion ■ E.P.J. Fund v. Halliburton ■ Greenwood v. CompuCredit ■ Harvey and Mowdy v. KAG West and Kennan Advantage Group Inc. ■ Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano ■ Minneci v. Pollard ■ Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Jackson ■ Wal-Mart v. Dukes ■ White and Case v. United States of America www.dri.org
Page 2 and 3:
Complex Claims Require Expert Knowl
Page 4 and 5:
DRI—The Voice of the Defense Bar
Page 6 and 7:
DRI Services 55 West Monroe Street
Page 8 and 9:
DRI ToDay— The NexT 50 yeaRs 2011
Page 10 and 11:
Embracing Our Common Humanity— Pr
Page 12 and 13:
Scalia and Garner: Making Your Case
Page 14 and 15:
Transportation Security— Its Evol
Page 16 and 17:
The Awards This year during the DRI
Page 18 and 19:
plan committed to achievement, sens
Page 20 and 21:
National Conclave of State and Loca
Page 22 and 23:
Over Criminalization of Business Co
Page 24 and 25:
22 ■ For The Defense ■ December
Page 26 and 27:
pRoFessIonAl lIAbIlITy Sidestepping
Page 28 and 29:
PROducT LIabILITy Past Is Prologue
Page 30 and 31:
Product LiabiLity specific faciliti
Page 32 and 33:
Product LiabiLity the two types of
Page 34 and 35: Product LiabiLity sive, albeit inco
Page 36 and 37: Professional liability The Times Th
Page 38 and 39: Professional liability ity of those
Page 40 and 41: Professional liability policies exc
Page 42 and 43: dRug and MedIcaL devIce FDA Regulat
Page 44 and 45: Drug anD MeDical Device a health ca
Page 46 and 47: Drug anD MeDical Device the manufac
Page 48 and 49: Drug anD MeDical Device “mere bee
Page 50 and 51: TRuckIng Law From the Chair By Kurt
Page 52 and 53: Trucking Law Rapid Response Teams B
Page 54 and 55: Trucking Law important way to docum
Page 56 and 57: Trucking Law there is no way to kno
Page 58 and 59: Trucking Law sonally witnesses an a
Page 60 and 61: Trucking Law A driver’s refusal t
Page 62 and 63: Trucking Law the likely attitudes o
Page 64 and 65: Trucking Law aging juror responsive
Page 66 and 67: Trucking Law Cross-border trucking
Page 68 and 69: Trucking Law Wake-Up Call for Carri
Page 70 and 71: Trucking Law den of proof standard
Page 72 and 73: Trucking Law The court concluded th
Page 74 and 75: Trucking Law share some of her know
Page 76 and 77: Trucking Law formula and are also n
Page 78 and 79: Trucking Law Intervention and “No
Page 80 and 81: Writers’ Corner Social Proof Why
Page 82 and 83: ThInk gLObaLLy 10 Tips Obtaining Ev
Page 86 and 87: FMSCa evaluation, from page 77 Smit
Page 88 and 89: may decide that failing to take thi
Page 91 and 92: Pennsylvania Bonnie S. Stein, Morri
show all

For The Defense, December 2011 - DRI Today

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?