The Supreme Court decided 15 major cases in the field of tort law this term. The opinions covered a wide spectrum, including the conduct of voir dire, the scope of expert testimony and the use of remittitur. The court also explored standards of liability for res ipsa in medical malpractice cases, child sex abuse cases, Title 59 cases and the Consumer Fraud Statute. One case that attracted widespread public attention was the high court’s decision to take away the $70 million malpractice verdict in Pellicer v. St. Barnabas Hospital.
The Supreme Court has firmly established a moderate course in tort law. The Court fashioned tight standards of proof for plaintiffs in automobile cases and for the use of res ipsa in medical malpractice litigation. Where the court perceived a legislative intent for expansive liability like consumer fraud and child sex abuse, the Court interpreted the statutes liberally. In those situations like Title 59 and the Dram Shop statute, where the legislative intent was to restrict liability, the Court clamped down on attempts to expand the reach of the statutory standards of liability.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
