The DRI Center for Law and Public Policy joined the Product Liability Advisory Council in its brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Gill v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., arguing that the court should reinforce its prior decisions disapproving
of lax expert opinions. The brief contended that the opinions at issue in this matter—so called “no-safe-threshold” opinions—are not grounded in scientific consensus or the facts of the particular case, and invite juries to
ignore the exposure evidence presented. Opinions that do not comport with Pennsylvania’s general acceptance standard for expert testimony are legally insufficient to establish causation, the brief stated, and settled Pennsylvania law holds that
such theories are not generally accepted science in toxic tort or product liability litigation.
The coalition brief—authored by DRI member Jim Beck, along with fellow Reed Smith LLP partner Jamie Lanphear—was also joined by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, the Federation for Defense and Corporate Counsel, and the National Association
of Manufacturers.
Read the Brief (PDF)
Learn more about the Center or sign up to receive quarterly updates and news.