Articles & Publications

Search
May 2018

May 11, 2018 was a victory for HPTY clients as Arizona joined the growing number of states holding that an employer owes no duty of care in an alleged “take-home asbestos exposure” lawsuit.

2017

Asbestos litigation continues unabated in jurisdictions across the country. Exposure scenarios that rarely gave rise to lawsuits just a few years ago are now the norm. Bystander, take-home and environmental drift cases are filed with regularity. The rise of these de minimis dose cases makes the proper application of causation criteria all the more important. Causation standards should be based on legitimate science and sound legal principles. This is our 2017 Update: Compendium of Asbestos Causation Standards.

  • May 15, 2018

    On April 27, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court, in Albert Lujan d/b/a Texas Wholesale Flower Co. v. Navistar, Inc., officially adopted the “sham affidavit rule.” Under the rule, “if a party submits an affidavit that conflicts with the affiant’s prior sworn testimony and does not provide a sufficient explanation for the conflict, a trial court may disregard the affidavit when deciding whether the party has raised a genuine fact issue to avoid summary judgment.”

  • April 2018

    Connecticut employs a comparative fault scheme that provides avenues by which a defendant can apportion fault to certain non-parties and, in so doing, reduce their proportional responsibility for any judgment. This benefit may be lost in a byzantine statutory scheme with provisions better suited for a joint and several liability system. Nevertheless, Connecticut’s comparative fault system allows for a broader conception of responsibility than many other states and provides defendants a means to explain to a jury that culpability determines responsibility.

  • April 2018

    Every lawyer would like to retire without ever facing a legal malpractice claim. Unfortunately, that’s unlikely to happen for most lawyers today. In 1950, lawyers who entered the profession had an approximately 2 percent chance of being sued by a client; by 2000 that had risen to 95 percent. Dismal as that sounds, there are things that you can do to reduce your chances of being sued.