Generally, mass torts refer to litigation designed to redress similar harms caused to a large or “massive” number of people. When numerous individuals have been harmed, for example, by a defective product or a dangerous drug, a “mass tort” lawsuit may be commenced to efficiently address all of the numerous complaints. Just as a tort is the legal term for a wrongful act or omission that causes harm to another, a mass tort is a wrongful act that harms many people.
Mass torts typically involve many injured parties (i.e. plaintiffs) suing one or just a few defendants. Almost always, the defendant(s) is a corporation, such as a manufacturer of a product. All of the individual claims filed against that defendant are similar and thus appropriate to join or consolidate into one action.
Although similar, mass tort matters are not class actions. They are similar in that they both involve scores of people who have been harmed by the negligence of another. However, they differ in the manner in which the plaintiffs are treated. In class actions, all of the injured parties are injured in the same way or share the identical loss, for example a data breach leading to identity theft. They must prove wrongdoing as part of a group and are thus represented “collectively.” In a mass tort litigation, each member of the group has an individual claim. Although the injured parties suffer similar injuries, the full extent of the injuries and damages of each injured individual is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For that reason, most mass tort settlements, verdicts and/or awards tend to be greater than awards in a class action.
A primary benefit of mass tort litigation is the ability to scale the litigation. Lawsuits are costly, and unfortunately, at times, civil wrongs may go unpunished and uncompensated because an individual plaintiff cannot afford to prosecute his or her claims against a big, multinational corporation, alone. Since plaintiffs shoulder the burden of proof in civil lawsuits, the costs of proving these cases are significant, and frequently prohibitive. The combining of plaintiffs in mass tort litigation benefits all plaintiffs as they are able to share investigatory, research and expert costs (i.e. referred to as “discovery”) that their respective cases incur as their lawyers seek to prove that a defendant’s wrongful conduct caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
Furthermore, few outside of litigation appreciate how much mass torts matters depend on the testimony of experts. Highly qualified experts are absolutely vital to these cases. Their testify is needed to prove (or refute) a defendant’s culpability, as well as the extent of a plaintiff’s damages. Expert witness fees can reach into the hundreds of thousands, which make it impossible to prosecute a mass tort on behalf of a single, standalone plaintiff. Hence, mass torts provide economies of scale for a large swath of deserving plaintiff, whose litigation costs can be spread out and borne by the collective and not the individual.
It is also important to recognize that mass tort plaintiffs reside in geographically diverse locations, which further complicates the logistics of prosecuting a case. In the case of a defective medication that has been marketed nationwide, it is certainly possible that plaintiff-consumers, who have suffered some form of harm by the defective drug, will reside in all 50 states. It would be impractical and onerous to force each to plaintiff file an individual lawsuit in his or her home state based on identical theories of negligence and damages. Our court system would be overwhelmed with thousands of cases with ostensibly the same (or very similar) facts.
For this reason, mass tort lawsuits are typically consolidated into what is known as a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”). MDL refers to the streamlining process in which these complex mass torts and product liability claims are consolidated into a single federal district court for pretrial proceedings. They lawsuits are joined in the MDL for purposes of discovery and the consistency of important rulings.
The individual plaintiffs further benefit as they are individually able to use all of the evidence that was gathered during the MDL discovery process. Because all of the lawsuits filed in an MDL involve the same general facts, the burden of proof is also shared across plaintiffs and a select group of experts may be used to prove liability (i.e. general causation) on behalf of all plaintiffs. On the other hand, MDLs require separate proofs for each plaintiff’s damages.
If you or a loved one has suffered the kind of harm that might give rise to a mass tort claim, you need to discuss your situation, and your options, with an experienced personal injury lawyer, who also possesses a familiarity with complex mass tort matters. At the Law Office of Todd Drayton, you will discover that our founder, Todd Drayton, has successfully represented countless mass tort plaintiffs who have been seriously injured by the defective products of major business.
For nearly a decade, Mr. Drayton was associated with Seeger Weiss, LLP, a leading firm with a national reputation in multidistrict mass torts and class action litigation. While there, Mr. Drayton represented hundreds of clients in connection with the firm’s Phenylpropanolamine and Ephedra pharmaceutical litigation. In one such mass tort, Mr. Drayton helped achieve a settlement of nearly $1 million from the manufacturer of an over-the-counter diet drug on behalf of a 56-year-old former school crossing guard in New Jersey, who suffered a massive intracerebral and intraventricular brain hemorrhage following her ingestion of the drug.
In another instance, Mr. Drayton helped obtain a significant six-figure settlement with the manufacturer of a cough remedy on behalf of a one-year-old child in Tennessee, who suffered a cerebrovascular accident and seizures following the child’s ingestion of a cough expectorant. The child was left with permanent physical and mental deficits, including right-sided paralysis and delayed development. During proceedings to approve the minor’s settlement, Mr. Drayton successfully obtained a separate per quod settlement for the parents of the child, which was awarded after the Superior Court Judge reversed an earlier ruling denying the relief.
Mr. Drayton also previously served as a supervising attorney in several of Seeger Weiss’s high-profile deceptive insurance marketing practices class actions, including In Re: Prudential Life Insurance Sales Practices Litigation, In re: Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. Sales Practices Litigation and Duhaime v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company.
Mr. Drayton has extensive experience representing plaintiffs in mass torts and members of class actions, and intimately understands the vast amount of hard work required to be successful in both. He has fought for the rights of his clients in both and helped obtained outstanding recoveries for his clients. At the Law Office of Todd Drayton, we believe that Mr. Drayton’s years of firsthand litigation experience, along with all of the valuable relationships he maintains in this unique area of the law, equips him like few others to be successful in this area of the law.
If you wish to speak with Mr. Drayton about your potential matter, contact us immediately. Our firm is wholly dedicated to helping those who have been injured through the negligence of others. With zeal, experience, commitment and a long tradition of excellence in providing top notch legal representation for the injured, the Law Office of Todd Drayton will fight to secure a just resolution on your behalf.
