BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack
BarbriPdBannerMessage

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Wednesday, January 24, 2024

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

$297.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

CLE
ALL

This CLE course will prepare product liability counsel to argue for or against letting the jury hear evidence of other incidents (or the lack thereof) involving the same or substantially similar products under substantially similar occurrences. The panel will also discuss the risks and benefits to product manufacturers of collecting incident data before litigation with an eye toward maximizing the chance of favorable rulings.

Faculty

Emily J. Rogers
Member
Campbell Conroy & O'Neil, PC

Ms. Rogers is a Member in the Pennsylvania office of Campbell Conroy & O’Neil. She is a seasoned trial attorney with first-chair experience. Ms. Rogers practice focuses on defending companies in complex negligence and products liability cases involving catastrophic personal injuries, allegations of wrongful death, and property damage. She also has experience with commercial disputes involving complicated contract and indemnification issues as well as insurance coverage matters. Ms. Rogers represents clients a diverse range of industries including insurance, construction, automobile and heavy equipment manufacturing, aviation, trucking, and property owners, and she litigates cases in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and as national counsel in many other jurisdictions. Since 2015, Ms. Rogers has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyers “Rising Star,” and is a 2014 graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy at Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, California. She is an active member of several professional organizations, as well as the firm’s Diversity Committee.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Katherine A. Wang
Member
Campbell Conroy & O'Neil, PC

Ms. Wang focuses her practice on complex product liability defense and appellate practice in the defense of high stakes cases of personal injury and property damage in state and federal litigation across the country.  She works closely with the firm’s trial teams and clients across varied practice areas in developing pre-litigation and litigation strategies in state and federal courts throughout the country.  Ms. Wang drives the trial teams’ strategic analysis of potential appellate issues that arise during trial, as well as during pre- and post-trial proceedings. She plays an integral role in the extensive motion practice involved in bringing cases to trial, as well as the briefing necessary at all stages of a case to ensure legal issues are presented and preserved to ensure the highest chance of success at trial and on appeal.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Evidence of “other similar incidents”—that a particular product has caused harm in the same way that the plaintiff was allegedly injured—can be a powerful tool for plaintiffs, and equally prejudicial to the defense if not carefully vetted. Equally compelling can be evidence that out of many, many uses over time, only the plaintiff has sustained the subject injury. Thus, the discovery and (in)admissibility of other similar incident (OSI) evidence (or its absence) is crucial in many product liability cases.

OSI evidence (or its absence) must involve the same or a substantially similar product and a substantially similar factual scenario to the case at bar. What makes a different product or different facts "substantially" similar to the case at hand is highly dependent on the type of product at issue, as well as the type of harm alleged and the particular circumstances of the case.

Listen as our authoritative panel of product liability counsel discusses strategies for handling OSI evidence and admitting favorable evidence on product safety, as well as the importance of establishing the foundation for these issues early on in a lawsuit. The panel will also discuss tips for counseling clients on incident reporting procedures.

Outline

  1. Strategies regarding the admission or exclusion of OSI evidence
    1. Restricting the scope of other incidents through written discovery and responding to requests for disclosure of incidents
    2. Limiting the relevance of incidents through opposing counsel's experts
    3. Attacking purported relevance of OSI evidence
    4. Dealing with OSI at trial
  2. Strategies to introduce evidence of lack of similar incidents
    1. Laying the foundation during discovery and at trial
    2. Countering common objections by plaintiff's counsel
    3. The basis for the admissibility of evidence regarding the absence of OSIs
  3. Counseling clients to establish solid recordkeeping procedures

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • What types of evidence may be introduced as OSI, and what foundational issues exist with regard to different types of OSI evidence?
  • When can incidents involving a different product, different product model, or different product model year constitute OSI evidence?
  • How can product liability counsel use favorable evidence of OSI or the lack of similar incidents to bolster their own client's case?
  • What are best practices for reporting and maintaining records of product incidents that will benefit product manufacturers in the event of future litigation?