Re: Mold, Good Case Law. Causation
Posted by Rem Dude on 5/22/10
Judgement was rendered without establishing causation nor
any intelligent link to exposure.
“The appeals court held that plaintiff did not have to
demonstrate that the alleged toxin is "capable" of causing
injuries like those suffered by the children, let alone
requiring the plaintiffs to prove that these children's
symptoms were caused by mold exposure. The court reasoned as
follows: "This is not a complicated case: the children were
removed from the home, the mold was discovered, and the
children recovered". Thus, the court based its decision
on "circumstantial evidence that would 'facilitate
reasonable inferences of causation, not mere speculation'."
No proof, no causation and no science, just loose
interpretations and conjecture. I can understand how this
case would be viewed as a victory for extortionists seeking
a quick buck in the courts. If this establishes case law,
then Michigan becomes the leader in junk science and
frivolous personal injury law.
On 5/21/10, Sharon wrote:
> COURTROOM NEWS Harris Martin Publishing
> Michigan Appellate Decision:
> LANSING, Mich. —Defendants in a mold case that resulted in
> a $303,260 verdict for a family...
> The Gennas complained that a water heater leak in
> unit led to extensive mold contamination in the Genna
> and that they were forced to move after experiencing
> diarrhea, vomiting, congestion, nosebleeds, fevers and
> other symptoms.
> In affirming the verdict, the Court of Appeals
> circumstantial evidence that would ‘facilitate reasonable
> inferences of causation, not mere speculation. . .”
> (quoting Skinner v. Square D Co [445 Mitch 153, 163-164;
> 516 NW2d 475 (1994)]).
Posts on this thread, including this one