Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Damage Is Done: Ordering A New Trial Based Only On Damages, Katherine Kubale, Richard Bales
The Damage Is Done: Ordering A New Trial Based Only On Damages, Katherine Kubale, Richard Bales
Pepperdine Law Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) allows trial courts to grant new trials to any or all of the parties, on any or all of the issues, including damages. However, the federal circuits are split on how to handle new trials based solely on damages. One croup of circuits grants partial new trials on damages alone only if the erroneous damage amount did not in any way affect the determination of any other issue. Under this standard, a new trial on damages is allowed when the second jury can evaluate the first damage award without also re-examining other issues, such …
California Expands Tort Liability Under The Novel Market Share Theory: Sindell V. Abbott Laboratories, N. Denise Taylor
California Expands Tort Liability Under The Novel Market Share Theory: Sindell V. Abbott Laboratories, N. Denise Taylor
Pepperdine Law Review
The California Supreme Court, in the novel and unprecedented case of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, eliminated the plaintiffs burden of identification of a negligent party, and thus the causation requirement, in a multiple party tort action. In the course of this decision, the court adopted the "market share" theory of liability which dictated in Sindell that nonidentifiable defendant-manufacturers of the generic drug DES would be liable for the damages in proportion to their share of business in the market. The author thoroughly examines various theories of recovery, such as "alternative liability," "concert of action" and "enterprise liability," which the court …
Molien V. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael P. Messina
Molien V. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael P. Messina
Pepperdine Law Review
In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest in freedom from negligent infliction of mental distress is a protectable interest, and that an accompanying physical injury need not exist in order to recover damages. The author presents a discussion of the history and policies behind the right to recover from negligently inflicted emotional distress. The author also discusses and analyzes the court's opinion in Molien and agrees with the court that the fears of opening the floodgate of litigation which before Molien precluded recovery, was arbitrary. Finally, the author concludes that the holding is …