![]() The narrow question that we must decide on a motion for summary judgment is whether there exists a ". ![]() Rather, the alleged ramifications of twentieth century technology have forced this Court to resolve uncharted, novel issues in the law. We recognize, however, that this case does not fit into neat, nineteenth-century common law concepts. In this Order, and in the previous Orders in this case, we have attempted to decide the motions before the Court justly and according to the law. Bohrer, Fear and Trembling in the Twentieth Century: Technology, Risk, Uncertainty and Emotional Distress, Wis. The delicate balance between assuring safety and encouraging economic development and innovation is increasingly difficult to maintain. One scholar aptly observed: Nuclear power, toxic chemicals, pesticides, dangerous drugs and other products of twentieth century technology present our society, and consequently our legal system, with an enormous challenge. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that they are suffering from an increased risk of disease, emotional distress in light of the increased risk of disease, and disease itself.Īt its core, this lawsuit has posed difficult questions of how to deal fairly with an alleged mass tort while ensuring a just adjudication. In this case, the workers and frequenters of NLO have brought suit alleging that they have been harmed as a result of the Defendants' actions at the FMPC. ![]() ("NLO") was involved in certain aspects of the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons for our country's armed services. The Defendants in this case operated the Feed Materials Production Center ("FMPC") located in Fernald, Ohio. 12 that unnecessary delay may result when a court considers piecemeal pre-trial motions). 1978) (noting in the context of Fed.R.Civ.P. As this Court has already expressed to the Defendants, we have concerns over the propriety of filing multiple, piecemeal pre-trial motions. Still, the Defendants have filed additional motions. Last month, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss certain counts contained in the Plaintiffs' Complaint. This Court has already held a lengthy statute of limitations trial in this case. 312), the Defendants' Notice of Filing (doc. 301), the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 253), the Plaintiffs' Combined Memorandum in Opposition (doc. 238), the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 212), the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. This matter is before the Court on the following motions: the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS Bernick, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, for defendants. Fenster, McKenna, Conner & Cuneo, Washington, DC, David M. Van Wart, Beirne & Wirthlin, Cincinnati, OH, Herbert L. William Howard Hawkins, II, Frost & Jacobs, John Stephen Wirthlin, Sr., Kevin T. De Marco, Allen Paul Grunes, Waite, Schneider, *648 Bayless & Chesley Co, Cincinnati, OH, for plaintiffs. *647 Thomas Joseph Kircher, Kircher, Robinson, Cook, Newman & Welch, Paul M.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |