This work contains articles on the sufficiency of evidence, expert witness testimony, remedies and damages, policy legislation, and the roles of toxicology, epidemiology and biostatistics.

The relationship between science, law and justice has become a pressing issue with US Supreme Court decisions beginning with Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceutical. How courts review scientific testimony and its foundation before trial can substantially affect the possibility of justice for persons wrongfully injured by exposure to toxic substances. If courts do not review scientific testimony, they will deny one of the parties the possibility of justice. Even if courts review evidence well, the fact and perception of greater judicial scrutiny increases litigation costs and attorney screening of clients. Mistaken review of scientific evidence can decrease citizen access to the law, increase unfortunate incentives for firms not to test their products, lower deterrence for wrongful conduct and harmful products, and decrease the possibility of justice for citizens injured by toxic substances. This book introduces these issues, reveals the relationships that pose problems, and shows how justice can be denied.

Toxic tort cases provide a natural framework for an in-depth illustration and an application of statistical methods for small-scale studies of putative sources of hazard. In this paper, we describe the aspects of a toxic tort case that focussed on quantifying the strength of evidence concerning the hypothesis that carcinogenic substances emitted from an industry source were associated with a statistically significant higher than expected incidence rate of neuroblastoma in children. We first present the epidemiological analysis carried out by the plaintiffs' experts (Drs P1, P2 and P3). We then summarize the key critiques by the defense experts (Drs D1, D2 and D3) followed by the plaintiff's reply. In the context of toxic torts, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the exposure resulting from the defendants' conduct is more likely than not causally related to the injury. We use this toxic tort case to identify common criticisms of the defense experts that take advantage of the complexity in evaluating causation in toxic torts. In the discussion, we summarize the common defense positions and question whether such questions are scientifically appropriate.

The proliferation of chemical substances in commerce poses scientific and philosophical problems. The scientific challenge is to develop data, methodologies, and techniques for identifying and assessing toxic substances before they cause harm to human beings and the environment. The philosophical problem is how much scientific information we should demand for this task consistent with other social goals we might have. In this book, Cranor utilizes material from ethics, philosophy of law, epidemiology, tort law, regulatory law, and risk assessment, to argue that the scientific evidential standards used in tort law and administrative law to control toxics ought to be evaluated with the purposes of the law in mind. Demanding too much for this purpose will slow the evaluation and lead to an excess of toxic substances left unidentified and unassessed, thus leaving the public at risk. Demanding too little may impose other costs. An appropriate balance between these social concerns must be found. Justice requires we use evidentiary standards more appropriate to the legal institutions in question and resist the temptation to demand the most intensive scientific evaluation of each substance subject to legal action.

Litigating Toxic Tort and Hazardous Waste Claims provides an authoritative, insiders perspective on key strategies for preparing and litigating a toxic tort case. Featuring partners from some of the nations leading law firms, these experts guide the reader through the process of developing a successful defense strategy by thoroughly fact-checking and researching a claim. These top lawyers reveal their advice on managing discovery, handling numerous pleadings, and collecting medical information. From understanding the science behind a claim to utilizing experts both inside and outside of the courtroom, these authors discuss the importance of communicating with scientific experts and becoming knowledgeable about the underlying technical issues involved in a toxic tort case. These leaders also share their strategies on litigating high-profile lawsuits like the World Trade Center disaster site litigation and defending strict liability Superfund cases. The different niches represented and the breadth of perspectives presented enable readers to get inside some of the great legal minds of today, as these experienced lawyers offer up their thoughts around the keys to success within this ever-evolving area of law.

The federal courts are seeking ways to increase the ability of judges to deal with difficult issues of scientific expert testimony. The workshop explored the new environment judges, plaintiffs, defendants, and experts face in light of "Daubert" and "Kumho," when presenting and evaluating scientific, engineering, and medical evidence.

Toxic Tort: Medical and Legal Elements, provides a primer covering medical and legal issues involved in toxic substances litigation. A physician attorney who has been a senior public health official, and expert witness and a trial attorney, wrote this book. His experiences have provided him with unusual insights into the interplay between the medical and legal elements of toxic substance litigation. These insights will provide interesting reading to attorneys dealing with this area of law. Unique features of this book include summaries of commonly encountered toxins as well as examples of independent medical evaluations designed to counter Daubert Challenges.