W.Va. Doesn't Understand The Scientific Method: Part 2

Law360, New York (February 13, 2014, 12:57 PM EST) -- Thinking about Harris v. CSX Transportation Inc. and trying to understand how a court could come to believe that an educated guess that has never been tested, or one that has been repeatedly tested and serially refuted, could nevertheless constitute scientific knowledge I thought I'd reread Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products: Advances in General Causation Testimony in Toxic Tort Litigation by Carl Cranor.

It was published earlier this year in a Wake Forest Law Review issue devoted to advancing the thinking that produced Milward and now...
To view the full article, register now.