Defense Litigation Insider Helping you navigate a clear path through complex litigation.

Alexander L. Zodikoff

Posts by Alexander L. Zodikoff

Massachusetts Stakes Out a Middle Ground and Allows Brand Drug Liability for Generic Drug Labeling Claims Upon a Showing of Recklessness and Serious Harm

Posted in False-Labeling Claims, Litigation Trends, Massachusetts Courts, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices, Products Liability

The overwhelming majority of courts (including all seven federal circuits that considered the issue) have rejected the so-called “innovator liability” doctrine.[1]  In 2017, however, the California Supreme Court in T.H. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.[2] unanimously recognized the doctrine holding that brand-name prescription drug manufacturers owe a duty to warn to consumers who use generic drugs.[3]… Continue Reading

Massachusetts Focuses on the Elements of Spoliation

Posted in Food & Beverage Litigation, Litigation Trends, Massachusetts Courts

In Santiago[1] v. Rich Products Corp., et al.[2], the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a finding of spoliation requires both: (1) the negligent and intentional loss or destruction of evidence; and (2) the awareness of the spoliator at the time the evidence is lost or destroyed of the potential for the evidence to help resolve… Continue Reading

Johnson & Johnson Found Not Responsible in Los Angeles Superior Court

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts

In the first case of its kind to go to trial, a jury recently returned a defense verdict against a plaintiff who claimed that exposure to Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder caused her to develop mesothelioma. The plaintiff, Tina Herford, filed suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and alleged that her exposure to… Continue Reading

D.C. Court of Appeals Overturns Frye and Adopts Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702

Posted in Complex Torts, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently adopted the standards found in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”), regarding the admissibility of testimony by expert witnesses, thereby replacing the Frye (“Frye”) test.  See Motorola Inc., et al. v. Michael Patrick Murray, et al., 2016 WL 6134870 (October 20, 2016)(“Motorola”). Washington D.C. is now… Continue Reading