Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in the number and magnitude of punitive damages verdicts rendered by juries in civil trials. Probably the most extraordinary example is the July 2000 award of $144.8 billion in the Florida class action lawsuit brought against cigarette manufacturers. Or consider two recent verdicts against the auto manufacturer BMW in Alabama. In identical cases, argued in the same court before the same judge, one jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, while the other awarded no punitive damages at all. In cases involving accidents, civil rights, and the environment, multimillion-dollar punitive awards have been a subject of intense controversy. But how do juries actually make decisions about punitive damages? To find out, the authors-experts in psychology, economics, and the law-present the results of controlled experiments with more than 600 mock juries involving the responses of more than 8,000 jury-eligible citizens. Although juries tended to agree in their moral judgments about the defendant's conduct, they rendered erratic and unpredictable dollar awards. The experiments also showed that instead of moderating juror verdicts, the process of jury deliberation produced a striking "severity shift" toward ever-higher awards. Jurors also tended to ignore instructions from the judges; were influenced by whatever amount the plaintiff happened to request; showed "hindsight bias," believing that what happened should have been foreseen; and penalized corporations that had based their decisions on careful cost-benefit analyses. While judges made many of the same errors, they performed better in some areas, suggesting that judges (or other specialists) may be better equipped than juries to decide punitive damages. Using a wealth of new experimental data, and offering a host of provocative findings, this book documents a wide range of systematic biases in jury behavior. It will be indispensable for anyone interested not only in punitive damages, but also jury behavior, psychology, and how people think about punishment.
Written by one of the leading asbestos experts for attorneys, occupational and environmental health professionals, and others in the field of toxic substances control, this updated resource provides a comprehensive examination of the public health history of asbestos. Includes extensive discussion of corporate knowledge and responsibility for asbestos hazards and detailed discussion of alternatives to asbestos.
This book is for the busy and new practitioner who is building their experience and expertise in asbestos claims. It is not written from the perspective of one side or the other. It is intended to neutrally state the position of the law and procedure in relation to dealing with claims of asbestos-related injury and to give some honest, frank and practical guide in doing so. Invariably, asbestos litigation is complex and time-consuming, and as such it is hoped that this practical guide will be a readily available initial source of reference to assist the practitioner who needs to refresh themselves on a certain topic, or to assist the practitioner in providing a core grounding of the key issues likely to be encountered in their caseload. It has been our privilege to practice in this area of law and it is an even bigger privilege for us to share those experiences and points of understanding with those who read this book. We sincerely hope it provides the type of assistance, and to some degree, re-assurance, that we all need from time to time in our work in this area of litigation. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jonathan Owen was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 2004, having completed his undergraduate degree at Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Bar Vocational Course at Nottingham Law School. He is a tenant at Ropewalk Chambers, in Nottingham, where he has practised since completion of pupillage. He has a broad civil practice with a particular focus on personal injury and industrial disease work. Gareth McAloon was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn in 2010. He is a tenant at Ropewalk Chambers, in Nottingham. Gareth specialises in all aspects of personal injury work, predominantly on the Multi-Track. He is a specialist practitioner in all aspects of industrial disease claims including; asbestos claims, NIHL claims, HAVS claims and repetitive strain injuries. In addition, Gareth is instructed in inquests and clinical negligence claims. The high value nature and complexity of the cases he deals with means that he has regular contact with medical and engineering experts both in Court and in his case preparation.
For decades, manufacturers from around the world relied on asbestos to produce a multitude of fire-retardant products. As use of the mineral became more widespread, medical professionals discovered it had harmful effects on human health. Mining and manufacturing companies downplayed the risks to workers and the general public, but eventually, as the devastating nature of asbestos-related deaths became common knowledge, the industry suffered terminal decline. A Town Called Asbestos looks at how the people of Asbestos, Quebec, worked and lived alongside the largest chrysotile asbestos mine in the world. Dependent on this deadly industry for their community’s survival, they developed a unique, place-based understanding of their local environment; the risks they faced living next to the giant opencast mine; and their place within the global resource trade. This book unearths the local-global tensions that defined Asbestos’s proud history and reveals the challenges similar resource communities have faced – and continue to face today.
This report describes the creation, organization, and operation of asbestos personal-injury trusts and compiles publicly available information on the assets, outlays, and governing boards of the 26 largest trusts. The authors find that the publicly available information provides a rich source of information on trust activity but that more detailed information is needed to determine their impact on important compensation outcomes.