•  
  •  
 

Abstract

With increasing frequency, federal courts throughout the nation have confronted a multiplicity of "toxic tort" claims, claims for relief arising from chronic and latent illnesses or diseases allegedly caused by toxic substances. Toxic substances are substances whose manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to a person's health or to the environment. Because many of these unreasonable health risks are caused by consumer and industrial products, many toxic tort claims are actually "toxic product" claims. Examples of toxic product claims include those arising from the use, exposure to, or consumption of chemicals such as Agent Orange, building products such as asbestos, and consumer products such as cigarettes and prescription drugs. Because toxic product claims seek relief for chronic and latently manifested diseases, they present numerous practical problems as well as novel and complex legal issues. Furthermore, a large number of suits may arise from a single, widely distributed toxic product, and each suit may name numerous defendants. Consequently, the spectre of innumerable complex toxic product suits now threatens to overwhelm many federal district courts. It is not uncommon for a single court to have hundreds or even thousands of pending suits, and to have a steady flow of new claims being filed, all resulting from a single toxic product. As a result, legal commentators and other interested persons voice an ever-increasing interest in federal legislation to resolve this perceived crisis. A variety of federal legislation has been introduced, but as yet, Congress has declined to enact any of this legislation. Those who advocate a federal legislative solution to the toxic product crisis necessarily assume that federal courts are currently incapable of reaching a fair and timely resolution of toxic product litigation. This Comment addresses the validity of that premise. It first defines the toxic product claim and describes the peculiar difficulties courts and attorneys encounter in toxic product litigation. It then reviews the numerous case management procedures currently available to expedite fairly a toxic product claim in the federal courts. This review suggests that federal legislation is not necessary to solve the perceived toxic product crisis. Instead, this Comment suggests that active use by the judiciary of the currently available case management procedures offers a viable solution to the toxic product litigation crisis. Necessarily, the discussion then proceeds to an analysis of the propriety of the enhanced role of judges as a consequence of full implementation of the case management procedures. This Comment argues that such an enhanced and more active judicial role not only is constitutional and proper, but further, that judges have a duty to pursue such a role and to employ existing case management procedures where efficacious. Consequently, this Comment concludes that if federal judges embrace and consistently use these presently existing procedural tools, any need for federal legislation, the effect of which is uncertain, would be precluded.

First Page

339

Download

Share

COinS