Judges Muzzle Science Experts in Liability Suits 'TOXIC TORT' CASES

By Scott Pendleton, writer of The Christian Science Monitor | The Christian Science Monitor, September 8, 1995 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Judges Muzzle Science Experts in Liability Suits 'TOXIC TORT' CASES


Scott Pendleton, writer of The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor


ENTHUSIASM for product-liability law reform is hotter than McDonald's coffee, not only among conservative lawmakers, but judges also.

New laws passed by 20 state legislatures and pending in Congress will make lawsuits rarer and judgments smaller against manufacturers whose products injure a plaintiff.

Judges, meanwhile, have begun to hand victory before trial to defendants by excluding evidence at the heart of some plaintiffs' cases. The silencing of scientific experts - the stars of today's high-dollar, "toxic tort" lawsuits - is becoming more common in today's court battles.

The use of such witnesses has increased at a time when, some lawyers say, juries tend to regard anyone labeled an expert as infallible, regardless of the quality of the testimony.

"There are some excellent experts out there, but there are some people whose opinions are for sale," says Vince Walkowiak, a Texas lawyer who is a member of the pro-defendant Product Liability Advisory Council. "We have seen a real blossoming of a cottage industry. It can create litigation where there shouldn't be any."

The change of heart regarding scientific experts favors defendants in the high-stakes product-liability arena, where giant corporations have often fallen.

Companies hit hard include:

*In 1982, Johns-Manville Corporation filed Chapter 11 because of asbestos-related claims and set aside $2.5 billion for plaintiffs.

*In 1985, A.H. Robins Company declared bankruptcy after 325,000 lawsuits over its Dalkon Shield contraceptive device. It set up a $2.5 billion trust fund for plaintiffs.

*In May, Dow Corning declared bankruptcy over breast implant claims. It and other defendants are haggling over creation of a $4.5 billion trust fund - despite the fact that studies have failed to link implants to the variety of illnesses afflicting plaintiffs.

"Virtually everything happening in the breast implant arena is founded on very dubious science," charges the Manhattan Institute's Peter Huber. His 1991 book, "Galileo's Revenge" (BasicBooks) maintains that much expert witness testimony was based on "junk science."

"Expert testimony has gotten out of hand," agrees Steven Goode, who specializes in evidence at the University of Texas School of Law. He notes that classified ads from expert witnesses crowd the pages of Trial, a magazine for plaintiff's attorneys. "There are a lot of people making a living testifying," he says.

That will be tougher now in Texas, a state reputed to have an aggressive plaintiff's bar and juries that sock defendants with huge damage awards.

Texas passed product liability reforms that took effect on Sept. 1. Plaintiff's attorneys are just as concerned over a state Supreme Court ruling in June that relied heavily on the US Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert decision, which said that trial courts should screen out scientific testimony of questionable merit. The effect of that decision has been that more judges are exercising this power before trial, rather than permitting experts to battle on the witness stand.

The Texas ruling, which barred an expert's testimony, "could be as damaging as anything that's occurred," says Michael Slack, a plaintiff's attorney in Austin and the legislative chairman for the Texas Trial Lawyers Association.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Judges Muzzle Science Experts in Liability Suits 'TOXIC TORT' CASES
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?