Subject: Causation

Defining the Limits of Lay Testimony in Complicated Products Cases

Share

“So when is a question too complicated for the jury?” That is the question the Third Circuit sought to answer recently in Slatowski v. Sig Sauer, Inc., ___ F. 4th ___, 2025 WL 2178533 (3d Cir. 2025), reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgment despite affirming its exclusion of the plaintiff’s causation experts. Ironically, the Third Circuit’s analysis of when an expert opinion is required is itself so nuanced that it may require expert interpretation. Upon close inspection, the Slatowski panel’s holding is not nearly as broad as the headings might suggest.

Continue reading “Defining the Limits of Lay Testimony in Complicated Products Cases”

Message Received – Delaware Follows Federal Rule of Evidence 702

Share

The Delaware Superior Court took the mass tort world by surprise with its May 31, 2024, refusal to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts’ causation opinions in the Zantac litigation, breaking with the federal MDL court’s prior exclusionary order and applying Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 “with a liberal thrust favoring admission.” The ruling was so unexpected that some outlets questioned whether Delaware courts would become a new preferred venue for mass tort plaintiffs. But, in a rare move, the Delaware Supreme Court granted the defendants’ request for interlocutory appeal — despite the Superior Court’s refusal to certify the order — and has now restored order, reversing the Superior Court’s decision and remanding for further proceedings. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litig., — A.3d —, 2025 WL 1903760 (Del. July 10, 2025).

Continue reading “Message Received – Delaware Follows Federal Rule of Evidence 702”

Double Take: Fifth Circuit’s Dual BELO Rulings Show Both General and Specific Causation Are Essential

Share

We previously blogged about a decision in the In re Deepwater Horizon BELO litigation – Ruffin v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. – in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants in an alleged chemical exposure case based solely on exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert testimony on general causation without reaching the experts’ specific causation opinions.   As it turns out, in another BELO case argued before the same panel on the same day, the panel analyzed the plaintiff’s experts’ specific causation opinions and declined to reach their general causation opinions. Williams v. BP Exploration & Production, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 1904153 (5th Cir. July 10, 2025). Notwithstanding the concerns we previously expressed about the Ruffin panel’s approach to general causation in isolation from specific causation, the Ruffin and Williams decisions provide a potent couplet illustrating that general causation and specific causation are two distinct steps in the analysis. Both must be proven in order for a plaintiff to make a prima facie case.

Continue reading “Double Take: Fifth Circuit’s Dual BELO Rulings Show Both General and Specific Causation Are Essential”

Tort Reform is Top of Mind in 2025: Legislative Updates in Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas

Share

The American Tort Reform Foundation’s list of “Judicial Hellholes” often are all-too-familiar jurisdictions for product liability defendants. Some states who are home to these infamous venues, often known for producing nuclear verdicts, have recently rallied for successful tort reform. In the most recent state legislative sessions, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas implemented tort reform bills which may serve to neutralize the nuclear verdicts coming out of their courts.

Georgia

Following several nuclear verdicts, including a $1.7 billion verdict in Hill v. Ford Motor Co. and a $2.5 billion verdict in Brogdon v. Ford Motor Co., Georgia has recognized the impact that excessive tort costs have on Georgia’s economy and its ability to attract businesses. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp unveiled a tort reform package in early 2025 that sought to address these issues.

Continue reading “Tort Reform is Top of Mind in 2025: Legislative Updates in Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas”

Fifth Circuit Clouds Threshold Dose Analysis in Ruffin v. BP

Share

Plaintiffs in toxic tort cases must prove both general and specific causation, generally through the testimony of experts. Experts must establish that a specific chemical exposure can (and did) cause the specific injury at issue. In order to make that showing, the plaintiff’s exposure must at least have exceeded the minimum harmful level of the chemical — the “threshold dose.” As the Eleventh Circuit made clear last year in its handling of In re Deepwater Horizon BELO litigation (which we discussed here), threshold dose is a concept that straddles general and specific causation. A more recent BELO case, Ruffin v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 1367185 (5th Cir. May 12, 2025), shows how isolating an expert’s general causation opinion from its implications on specific causation can cloud the analysis.

In Ruffin, the plaintiff worked for five months as a clean-up worker following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer five years later and sued the defendant, claiming he was exposed to chemicals that caused his cancer. He described two instances of exposure: one when oil splashed onto his face while travelling by boat and another when he fell in the water. The plaintiff had a known genetic risk for prostate cancer, but his expert claimed the oil exposures were a “second and necessary hit to initiate his prostate cancer.” The defendant moved to exclude the plaintiff’s causation expert, a genetic and molecular epidemiologist, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The district court had excluded both the expert’s general and specific causation opinions as unreliable, largely for failure to specify a threshold dose, and then granted summary judgment for want of admissible expert evidence.

Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Clouds Threshold Dose Analysis in Ruffin v. BP“

Ten Things to Know About the European Union’s New Product Liability Directive

Share

After it was initially proposed more than two years ago, the European Union passed a new product liability directive (PLD) on Dec. 9, 2024, which prescribes a new legislative framework to expand and modify product liability laws created by the current PLD (originally enacted in 1985). As with other EU directives, the PLD sets legislative and policy goals that the EU’s 27 member states are obligated to implement into national law. For the PLD, they must do so within two years — by December 2026.

The new PLD was presented during the legislative phase as a modernization of pre-Internet Age laws from the 1980s. But beneath that exterior, the new PLD makes various substantive changes that are likely to increase litigation risk and costs for companies doing business in Europe. These changes will impact not only manufacturers of consumer products traditionally subject to product liability law, but also other businesses such as technology and software companies, which will be subjected to product liability law for the first time.

Continue reading “Ten Things to Know About the European Union’s New Product Liability Directive”