In Pa., 'Any Exposure' Does Not Equal Causation

Law360, New York (June 14, 2012, 1:03 PM EDT) -- Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has dealt a unanimous[1] blow to plaintiffs’ asbestos lawyers, and potentially to plaintiffs’ lawyers in a wide range of pharmaceutical, chemical and tobacco products cases requiring scientific evidence to prove specific causation.

Upholding the trial court’s Frye ruling, the court rejected plaintiffs’ expert’s reliance on the “any exposure” theory to prove specific causation in an asbestos case.

More importantly, it made plain that it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove by accepted and not “novel” scientific evidence that the exposure to a particular...
To view the full article, register now.

UK Financial Services

UK Financial Services

Read Our Latest UK Financial Services Coverage

Financial Services Law360 UK provides breaking news and analysis on the financial sector. Coverage includes UK and European Union policy, enforcement, and litigation involving banks, asset management firms, and other financial services organizations.