JOINT DEFENSE OF MASS TORT/PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION – TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS
Join this panel for an insightful conversation. Topics to be addressed include:
- Coordination among (i) business partners within the chain of distribution and (ii) entities within the same industry (e.g., retailers of similar products)
- Independent counsel – identity/alignment of interests
- Insurance/indemnity issues
- Joint defense and confidentiality agreements
- Cross-claims and third-party claims
- Coordinating discovery and pre-trial/trial strategy
- Utilizing industry organizations to assist with strategy, amicus briefs, etc.
TRENDS IN TALC AND PFAS LITIGATION, AND REGULATIONS TO WATCH IN 2024
LIFE IN THE GRAY AREA – PRODUCT LIABILITY ISSUES SURROUNDING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
THE FUTURE OF MDL LITIGATION
AMICUS PROGRAM - 2023 YEAR IN REVIEW: Hot Topics, Developments and Emerging Issues
RUNNING FROM THEIR BURDEN: The Resurgence of the No-Injury Plaintiffs’ Use of Class Actions
Todd A. Croftchik, Esq.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
DEBUNKING THE UNSOUND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING FIRE CAUSATION IN A LITHIUM-ION BATTERY
This presentation will review the current theories utilized by Plaintiffs experts to establish causation as well as review the state of the scientific literature and testing regarding the ability to determine when a lithium-ion battery cell is the cause as opposed to the victim of the fire—and how to fight such claims in light of public perception concerning the potential volatility of lithium-ion products and unscientific ipsi dixit claims of causation.
WINNING (OR LOSING) THE CASE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM: Legislative and Rules Reforms that Make a Difference
Learn about impactful changes that state legislatures have made in Michigan, Montana, Florida and Iowa to alter aspects of product liability law, and get updated on federal and state rules amendments that have recently been adopted or are underway. Understand how those changes originated, and discover what we as defense lawyers can do to affect those developments in a positive way.
EXPANDING PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW? Gilead Science and the Duty to Innovate
COMPUTER MODELING AND PLAINTIFFS ALTERNATIVE DESIGN OBLIGATIONS
In most jurisdictions plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing a reasonable or practical alternative design. Increasingly, plaintiffs are relying on the defendant’s own computer-aided engineering or finite element modeling in order to establish a proposed alternative for a particular product or component part. This tactic provides a shortcut for plaintiffs’ alternative proposal and can be developed without the need for costly testing. This segment explores the tactics relied upon in discovery and at trial, and offers strategies to limit these efforts.
DEVELOPING ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMATED VEHICLES BASED ON DUTY OF CARE
Public expectations for automated vehicles span a broad range, from mobility for passengers, to road user safety, to compliance with the traffic code. In most ordinary situations, these expectations can be satisfied simultaneously. But these various expectations can also lead to exceptional scenarios where certain objectives, such as those related to safety, are in tension with road rules. Exceptional driving scenarios challenge motion planning algorithms in automated vehicles to find solutions that are legally grounded, ethically sound, and technically feasible.
J. Christian Gerdes, Ph.D.
Co-Director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (CARS)
Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Emeritus