The other day Ted instanced one example of how rigorous standards for admission of expert evidence often help plaintiffs, who are given a better shot at fighting studies proffered by the defense that they see as dubious. Here's another instance, this time from New Jersey, in which plaintiffs in a low-speed auto collision sought to exclude the defense's introduction of studies finding no chronic health conditions to result from soft-tissue injury in controlled accidents. In this case an appeals court ordered the tests thrown out as lacking in scientific reliability, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, ruling that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to have admitted them in a case which eventuated in a low jury verdict.
Plaintiffs' requests for expert evidence exclusion, cont'd
Related Entries:
- How much is the Bluetooth settlement injunction worth?
- Around the web, February 21
- Preempro jackpot justice verdicts in Philadelphia
- Chesley experts in two cases drop testimony
- Liability for thee, but not for me
- Texas Supreme Court finishes off Garza v. Merck
- "Win or lose, trial lawyers get millions in Vioxx fees"
- Dewey v. Volkswagen opening brief
- What the heck is going on in King County family court?
- Around the web, July 12
- Podcast on Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- $322M verdict for phantom asbestosis
- Gameshow justice: Godwin v. Electrolux Home Prods.
- Ken Feinberg and the Kentucky fen-phen suit
- Around the web, February 5
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Communications Manhattan Institute communications@manhattan-institute.org |