- Truckers scramble as liability insurers exit from fleet coverage after giant verdicts [Brian Baskin, WSJ]
- Court rejects demand for netting at Major League Baseball venues: fans “lacked standing to sue because they could not show a sufficient likelihood they would be injured at future games” [Jonathan Stempel, Reuters]
- Talcum powder: “St. Louis Jury Returns Another Jaw-Dropping Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson” [Evan Tager and Miriam Nemetz, Mayer Brown Punitive Damages Blog]
- Study: pro se cases aside, not clear that Iqbal/Twombly pleading decisions have done much to alter case outcomes [William Hubbard via Brian Wolfman, CL&P]
- “Historic tobacco case revisited: biggest litigation win ever or a complete scam?” [Mark Curriden, Dallas News back in April]
- Should the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure move to a requester-pays system of discovery? [Alexander Dahl and A. Benjamin Spencer, Federalist Society podcast]
One Comment
The companies’ employees were negligent.
The companies did not institute practices that would reduce the number of accidents.
Accidents occurred. Damages would have been manageable if the company had better risk management. Since they did not, they paid. Or, rather, their insurance paid.
So, the solution is easy. Employ better methods for ensuring safety compliance. then the number of accidents will be reduced, damages,will go down, as will insurance rates will decrease.
In sum, the Torts system is working. The alternatives are allowing more accidents or having government regulate more.