Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Toxic torts

Overinterpretation of laboratory and epidemiologic studies of cancer causation can make cancer-prevention regulations inefficient and ineffective. Similarly, it can lead to unjust resolution of cancer-related toxic torts. In this book VanDoren explains how these difficulties arise and gives valuable insight into how they can be reduced or eliminated by market-driven choices of individuals and companies. ... [Pg.102]

Criminal Convictions Related to Toxic Tort Exposures... [Pg.683]

See also Distribution Immune System Poiiution, Soii Poiybrominated Diphenyi Ethers (PBDEs) 2,4,5,-T Toxic Torts. [Pg.883]

See a/so Delaney Clause Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, US Food and Drug Administration, US Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, US Pesticides Risk Assessment, Human Health Toxic Torts. [Pg.1170]

See also Delaney Clause Food Additives Food and Drug Administration, US Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) Investigative New Drug Application Toxic Torts. [Pg.1178]

See also Analytical Toxicology Law and Toxicology Toxicology, Education and Careers Toxic Torts. [Pg.1185]

See also Clean Air Act (CAA), US Clean Water Act (CWA), US Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, US National Environmental Policy Act, US Toxic Torts. [Pg.2604]

During the last half century, a complex form of tort action known as the toxic tort has developed to address some of the challenges of modern industrial society. Typically, the toxic tort is a civil action that seeks damages for injury to person or to property arising from alleged exposure to a toxic substance, emis-... [Pg.2604]

Toxic tort litigation has several distinguishing characteristics, including issues of exposure, latency, prospective damages, causation, risk, and complex challenges involving expert testimony and multiplicity of parties. [Pg.2604]

Regarding latency , in some toxic tort actions, the alleged adverse effects of exposure may not be immediately apparent because the injuries have not yet manifested themselves or because the harm goes undetected for a period of time. Latency often becomes an issue in lawsuits involving cancer, birth defects, and genetic mutations, and statutes of limitation or rules of accrual may be modified to accommodate those situations where the moment of the defendant s action and the discovery of the injury are separated by substantial intervals of time (typically years). [Pg.2605]

The standards for admissibility of expert testimony to prove causation clearly will continue to impact the future of toxic tort litigation. Therefore, an understanding of the Daubert decision and the continuing debate over the admissibility of expert scientific or medical testimony will benefit anyone dealing with toxic or environmental tort issues. [Pg.2606]

Regarding causation analysis, courts often accept testimony from nonphysicians, especially in toxic tort, workers compensation, and product liability cases. [Pg.2606]

By contrast, the critics of Frye proclaim that the test should be abolished because it bans useful groundbreaking studies or theories from the courtroom. Plaintiffs have argued that the people who have been harmed by exposure to toxic substances should not have to wait for proof of others being similarly hurt before they can receive relief. This argument is especially significant in the context of toxic tort litigation, where anecdotal (case) reports have been cited by some experts as evidence that a toxic substance causes a specific type of injury. [Pg.2607]

Many toxic tort plaintiffs argue against the application of the Frye test. Specifically, as innocent victims, they contend that they should not have to wait several years for adequate epidemiologic studies... [Pg.2607]

Importantly, however, there are some science-based criteria that both Frye and Daubert courts can employ in toxic tort cases. These criteria are found in the ontologic framework of scientific... [Pg.2608]

Traditionally, a plaintiff has two tasks known as burdens of proof. First, he or she must meet the burden of production by providing factual evidence for each element of a particular cause-of-action (e.g., negligence, battery, etc.) Second, he or she has a burden of persuasion. That is, she must convince the jury that her version of the facts is worthy of their collective belief with a minimum level of certainty, as defined by a standard of persuasion. The four commonly used standards are (a) beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases (b) by clear and convincing evidence in some civil cases and (c) more likely than not or (d) by a preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases, including workers compensation, toxic tort, products liability, and occupational disease claims. [Pg.2610]

Among the elements of a case which the plaintiff has the burden of proving is causation-in-fact. This element is common to toxic tort, hazardous waste, occupational disease, and conventional traumatic injury claims. As noted above, causation-in-fact probability is not an issue in most conventional injury cases. The jury simply decides which version of the facts it believes in an all-or-none, yes-or-no fashion, with no room for intermediate probabilities. Causation evidence is not expressed probabilistically. [Pg.2610]

The propriety of this kind of mental leaping is one of the most controversial aspects of toxic tort and occupational disease cases, where causation often cannot be properly formulated as a yes-or-no fact. Instead, parties rely on evidence of increased risk or enhanced probability of disease which may or may not be attributable to defendant s conduct. The inquiry becomes one of the existence and magnitude of a fact probability. Therefore, understanding the dual nature of probability, as both a factual statistical quantity (fact probability) and a measure of strength of belief (belief probability), becomes important. Unfortunately, fact probability and belief probability have not been kept analytically distinct. Courts have collapsed the requirements for burden of production and burden of persuasion into one test that blurs plaintiff s twofold task of defining not only the facts or elements to be proved but also the amount of credence to be accorded a fact in support of a finding. When a judge tells a jury that plaintiff must show that causation is more likely than not, she/he risks confusion. Does she/he mean that the fact of causation which plaintiff must prove (burden of production) is not traditional true-or-false (100% vs. 0%)... [Pg.2611]

Courts that apply the rule only to fact probabilities essentially seek a yes-or-no belief in a >50% fact probability. By contrast, traditional courts that apply the rule only to belief probabilities seek a >50% belief in a yes-or-no fact. In toxic tort/occupational disease claims where both fact probability and belief probability are issues, there are at least two other approaches. Courts could apply the more-likely than-not standard jointly, reducing alleged fact probability by a factor reflecting the jury s doubt about its truth. By contrast, the rule could be applied sequentially to require only a > 50% belief in a fact probability which itself may barely exceed the >50% threshold. It is important to see that joint application stiffens the causation burden-of-produc-tion/burden-of-persuasion, while sequential application substantially lessens the causation production/ persuasion requirements. The point here is that, regardless of approach, a court that deals with causal indeterminacy characteristic of toxic tort/occupational disease claims should be explicit about what it is doing, especially if defendant s culpability of conduct or duty to prevent risk is factored into determination of the causation issue. [Pg.2611]


See other pages where Toxic torts is mentioned: [Pg.100]    [Pg.498]    [Pg.304]    [Pg.274]    [Pg.275]    [Pg.323]    [Pg.145]    [Pg.63]    [Pg.683]    [Pg.684]    [Pg.1512]    [Pg.2604]    [Pg.2604]    [Pg.2604]    [Pg.2604]    [Pg.2604]    [Pg.2605]    [Pg.2605]    [Pg.2606]    [Pg.2607]    [Pg.2608]    [Pg.2608]    [Pg.2608]    [Pg.2609]    [Pg.2609]    [Pg.2610]    [Pg.2610]    [Pg.2611]    [Pg.2612]    [Pg.2612]    [Pg.2612]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.30 ]




SEARCH



Toxic tort risk assessment

© 2024 chempedia.info