We’ve been thinking again about the American Law Institute’s “Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation,” in part because we’ll be asked to vote on whether to accept the draft at the ALI’s annual meeting in May.
The draft is long and says many things.
One thing that it says, however, is this:
To facilitate
We here at the Drug and Device Law Blog haven’t always been kind to the work product produced by the American Law Institute. We’ve haven’t hesitated to criticize drafts of the “Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation” — for example, here and here.
Today, we’re striking a different tune.
Although we’re both members
Some time ago we posted critically about an ALI Restatement proposal (since tentatively adopted over our, or at least, Bexis,’ vocal objections) that would abolish the requirement that expert witnesses hold their opinions to a reasonable degree of professional certainty. Not long after that we became aware that the folks over at Blog 702 thought
Regular visitors to our blog may remember that back in February we posted on “31 (or More) Reasons to Watch ALI’s Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation.” For reference, here’s the link. Basically we didn’t like where this project was headed. We highlighted 31 ways in which the draft principles would have changed
With the ALI annual meeting approaching, the new drafts of the various restatements and other projects are becoming available. We’ve been reviewing Tentative Draft No. 5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. Like all ALI publications, it’s available for purchase from the ALI, see: here
The thing that catches
You’d probably expect that two guys whose idea of recreation includes commenting on drug and medical device product liability litigation would be members of the American Law Institute – and you’d be right. We both are ALI members, and it’s an outstanding organization through which many really smart and really dedicated people to donate huge