"1st Look" at the New "But For" Standard in Massachusetts Torts
Doull v. Foster: simplifying an unnecessarily confusing rule
- Product Number: 2210359WBC
-
CLE Credits, earn up to:
2 substantive credits, 0 ethics credits CLE Credit Note -
Add to Favorites List
Choose Date/Location:
-
Product Description
Product Description
This program is a must for all attorneys litigating medical malpractice, personal injury, toxic tort, and other similar cases in Massachusetts. The Supreme Judicial Court in Doull v. Foster recently abandoned the substantial factor test for the "but-for" causation standard in most cases. Judges, juries, and attorneys in Massachusetts have been trying to understand and apply the confounding substantial factor test in personal injury cases and other torts for decades. In an effort to bring clarity to the causation standard, the SJC affirmed that juries should be instructed on "but-for" causation in most cases, even those where multiple acts of negligence have been alleged. The only exception exists in asbestos and other toxic tort matters. For those cases, substantial factor causation was retained, but its survival could be short lived. The Doull decision presents both pitfalls and opportunities for attorneys handling these cases.Every attorney involved in tort litigation should attend this presentation to learn how this important decision will impact their pending and future cases.
- Agenda
- Faculty