Articles

IDENTIFYING AND LITIGATING QUALITY AUTO PRODUCTS DEFECT CASES

Brian D. Chase (Bisnar | Chase, LLP) and Scott D. Raphael (Litigitechnology, Inc.)

One of the costliest but most satisfying and rewarding areas of product liability litigation involves automobile product liability defect cases. Without considerable self-schooling, exposure and experience in handling these cases they can quickly prove overwhelming or even well beyond the resource capability to a relatively small practitioner’s office. Spotting the quality auto product liability case from an ocean of potential defect litigation is therefore essential to survival and success in this field.

Click Here to read the full article.

EXPERT WITNESSES AND MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Brian D. Chase (Bisnar | Chase, LLP) and Scott D. Raphael (Litigitechnology, Inc.)

Introduction

Since well prior to the 1986 Discovery Act, parties were at best committed to guesswork in ascertaining what expert discovery would be permitted at trial based on pretrial inadequacies in the disclosure of expert witnesses, of the scope of expert witnesses’ opinions, the transactional nature and source of acquisition of the expert’s opinions, and the adequacy of the expert’s deposition testimony as to the scope of his anticipated trial testimony. This followed largely from the lack of any meaningful guidance by the Courts or the Legislature on these subjects.

Click Here to read the full article.

MULTIPLYING YOUR TORT RECOVERY BY ELIMINATING SETTLEMENT SET-OFFS UNDER PROPOSITION 51

Brian D. Chase and Scott D. Raphael

The Electorate’s Attack on the Perceived Common Law “Deep Pocket” Rule

On June 3, 1986, California voters approved Proposition 51, the so-called “Fair Responsibility Act of 1986." (Civil Code § 1431.2 - 1431.5) Its purpose was to remedy a perceived “deep pocket” injustice built into the doctrine of joint and several liability, whereby “if a defendant was found to be at all negligent, regardless of how minimally, under the joint and several liability rule he could be held responsible for the full damages sustained by the plaintiff, even if other concurrent tortfeasors had also been partially, or even primarily, responsible for the injury.” (See, Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1196.) This perceived injustice had been further complicated by the adoption of the pure comparative negligence doctrine in California in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, which abrogated the all-or-nothing contributory negligence doctrine and instead held that “the contributory negligence of the person injured...shall not bar recovery, but the damages awarded shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering.” (Id., 13 Cal.3d at 829.)

Click Here to read the full article.

Cutting Edge Testing For Rollover Cases: NHTSA’s Road Edge Recovery Maneuver

By Brian D. Chase

I. Introduction:

For those of you who practice in the area of auto crashworthiness litigation, in particular rollover accidents, how many times have you heard the auto manufacturer, its experts, or a jury boldly proclaim some or all of the following: “This vehicle meets all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)”; “This vehicle complies with or exceeds all National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) guidelines or recommendations”; “NHTSA has investigated, or considered investigating, the alleged defect and determined that its not necessary to issue any new guidelines or safety standards”; and, “This vehicle passes the auto manufacturer’s rigorous stability and handling testing”? In addition to those proclamations, how many times have you had your vehicle stability experts criticized in deposition or on the witness stand as having “manipulated” their testing, that their testing it is not “objective” or “repeatable”, or that their testing is “merely a plaintiff’s test that has nothing to do with what happens in a real world accident”? Lastly, how many time have you heard, and this is the one that grates on me the most in a rollover case, the driver “panicked” and “over corrected” thereby somehow causing the vehicle to rollover unnecessarily and stating it was “driver error”?

Click Here to read the full article.

MAKING MOTIONS FOR TRIAL-SETTING PREFERENCE

Brian D. Chase (Bisnar | Chase, LLP) and Scott D. Raphael (Litigitechnology, Inc.)

Introduction

The adage “time is money” was never more appropriately applied than to personal injury litigation. Twenty years ago, prior to adoption of Delay Reduction Act/”Fast-Track” measures in California’s trial courts, cases frequently could not receive trial settings for years after the complaint was filed, often requiring waivers of the five-year deadline for trial in larger California counties to ensure that a courtroom could be secured for the trial. Delay Reduction measures have dramatically changed the picture, with most superior courts now setting cases for trial within 12 to 18 months of the filing of the complaint. Notwithstanding the significant reduction in trial delays, plaintiffs typically do not resolve their cases unless and until a firm trial date is set, and protracted delays mean delayed resolution and delayed funding of a settlement or judgment.

Click Here to read the full article.

UTILIZING EXPERT WITNESSES

Brian D. Chase and Scott D. Raphael

Expert witnesses have become an essential part of modern trial practice. Unfortunately, their use has become almost too casual, with may practitioners on both sides resorting to an almost "knee-jerk" routine of hiring experts in every case. Contrary to what may be prevailing conventional wisdom, however, not every case genuinely requires retention of experts, although in most cases testimony from treating physicians (nonretained experts) is still required to carry the burden of proof on causation of injury.

Click Here to read the full article.

HOLDING WRONGDOERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DAMAGES THEY CAUSE SINCE 1978

Bisnar | Chase 2006-2008 - Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 60 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Bisnar | Chase has received this award for three consecutive years.