 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Foust v. Southeastern Pennsylvania6/29/2000
ursue individual actions. Realistically, a class action is the only means asymptomatic plaintiffs have to recover medical monitoring expenses. Id. at 115-16 (citations omitted).
Holding:
We conclude that the trial court succinctly and correctly expressed reasons supporting the grant of class action status in this case when it stated:
No reason has been put forth why the size of the class would render management of the trial unwieldy. If fact, the one trial will be no more unwieldy than each separate action would be and the advantage of trying these issues only once, rather than hundreds or thousands of times seems obvious. If each case were tried separately, it is easy to see that the results could be unfairly diverse not because of the differences in the individual cases or claims but, rather, because different juries viewing the same evidence might come to different conclusions on the scientific issues. We have considered all of the criteria set forth above from Pa. R.C.P. Nos. 1702 and 1708[ ] and have no difficulty whatsoever in concluding that prosecution of this action as a class action is reasonably efficient-much more efficient than would be individual actions-and the only fair way to resolve the common issues with the same result for all persons subject to the same conduct by the defendants. (Trial court Opinion at pages 14-15).
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29 th day of June, 2000, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County is hereby affirmed.
JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|