Talking the talk

A recent “Dinner-Party Dialogue” column in TRIAL’s Justice in Motion section, “Straight Talk about Companies Moving Overseas” [Apr. 2007, at 12], omitted the most direct response to a query about why companies relocate abroad.

The column accurately points out that companies don’t move overseas to avoid litigation. Foreign companies that sell products in the United States are subject to the same liability laws as American companies. Toyota or Nissan can be sued for defective products just like Ford and Chevrolet.

The main reason these corporations move their facilities overseas is to take advantage of cheap labor and U.S. tax laws that make investing overseas more profitable for the companies.

Oliver “Jackson” Schrumpf
Sulphur, Louisiana

A noted article

Month after month, I am impressed by the high standards of scholarship and professionalism embodied in this publication. I was, therefore, not at all surprised to see that an article from TRIAL featured prominently in a recent decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down a state statute that required plaintiffs to file affidavits of merit in medical malpractice cases. (Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 152 P.3d 861 (Okla. 2006).)

The article—an insightful, well-researched, and persuasively written piece by Seabrook, Maryland, trial lawyer David Kopstein—was entitled “An Unwise ‘Reform’ Measure” [May 2003, at 26]. In the Zeier opinion, Chief Justice Joseph Watt cites the article in no fewer than six footnotes as authority for a variety of legal and practical effects of statutes requiring affidavits of merit.

Plaintiffs in Oklahoma asserting negligence generally need only file a petition giving defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds on which they rest, but the statute at issue in Zeier required plaintiffs in medical negligence cases to file affidavits of merit from medical experts affirming that the claims against health care providers were meritorious and that the defendants’ acts or omissions constituted professional negligence.

Finding that the statute targeted the class of medical malpractice plaintiffs for different treatment than the entire class of tort victims, the Oklahoma high court held that it violated the state constitutional prohibition against special laws. The court further found that the law created an unconstitutional monetary barrier to access to the courts because the costs associated with identifying a suitable expert and obtaining the necessary affidavit of merit effectively precluded some plaintiffs from obtaining judicial review of their grievances.

The trial lawyers who represented the plaintiff and ably argued their cause to the state supreme court—John Nicks and Thomas Layo of Tulsa, Oklahoma—should be commended for this exemplary result.

AAJ, too, should be proud that its flagship publication is so well received—and relied on—in the highest courts of the land.

George S. Tolley III
Timonium, Maryland

Send your comments and questions about the online version of TRIAL to us at trial@justice.org

Letters July 2007 | Volume 43, Issue 7

Talking the talk

A noted article

Letters
July 2007 | Volume 43, Issue 7