 Article
Feeds
|
Ohio Supreme Court Rules Plaintiffs Must Offer Expert Testimony to Establish Both General and Specific Causation in Toxic Tort Cases by Terrance M. Miller
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
Columbus Office
Carolyn A. Taggart
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
Cincinnati Office
Tracey L. Turnbull
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
Cleveland Office
| |
|
August 18, 2008
Previously published on October 2007
The Ohio Supreme Court recently heightened the level of proof required for plaintiffs to succeed not only at trial but also at the summary judgment stage in toxic tort cases.Terry v. Caputo, 2007-Ohio-5023. In so doing, the Court held that cases involving exposure to toxic chemicals require two scientific inquiries: (1) whether the substance at issue is capable of causing the plaintiff's medical condition (general causation), and (2) whether the substance did, in fact, cause the plaintiff's medical condition (specific causation). Both of these inquiries, moreover, require expert testimony to satisfy the burden of proof. As a result, plaintiffs have an additional hurdle to clear to avoid summary judgment in toxic tort cases, and defendants in those cases have an additional tool to use in support of motions for summary judgment.
|
The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This article is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. |
|
|
RSS | Blogs | Site Map | Contact Us