Rost v. Ford


(Penn., filed in January of 2015):  Arguing that a plaintiff in an asbestos action cannot satisfy the burden of establishing substantial-factor causation by an expert’s ‘cumulative exposure’ theory that the expert concedes is simply an ‘any exposure’ theory by a different name.  Also arguing that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas’ mandatory practice of consolidating unrelated asbestos cases—even where the defendants suffer severe prejudice as a result—is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.

Court ruled against ATRA's position

Court ruled against ATRA’s position on November 22, 2016. 

Latest News

View all news

More Work Remains on Tort Reform

This letter-to-the-editor was originally published by The Herald-Dispatch in Huntington, WV. West Virginia was a mainstay on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s “Judicial Hellholes®” list for nearly 20 years, finally […]