The Supreme Court of the State of New York Cites GEC's Expert Research and Methodology As Basis for Ruling on Economic Claim
The Supreme Court of the State of New York - New York County ruled that The GEC Group's economic analysis was correctly founded on industry data in line with and specific to plaintiff's claim that an injury caused him to lose employment and earnings as a cement and concrete laborer. The court noted that The GEC Group appropriately considered "data published by Local 18A and the District Council of Cement and Concrete Workers in New York City" to measure future earnings. The court further noted that plaintiff's claim is at odds with the industry data presented by GEC, and in particular that the works hours and earnings claimed by plaintiff are "rare and fail to take into account the downtime during an employee's work life."
In contrast, the court ruled that plaintiff's claim, as presented by plaintiff's economist, was speculative and unsupported by industry data that was presented by The GEC Group.
The court awarded the economic damages calculated by GEC.
The Economic and Legal Impact of Robot Cars: Insurance, Liability, and Damages
The widespread adoption of robot cars could have a revolutionary impact, reducing injuries and fatalities and transforming the industry from car ownership to ride-share services. The auto insurance industry may wither, as the idea of personal car ownership slowly disappears. And without human drivers, or insurance policies to match, traditional approaches to liability may have to evolve. Already, with a rapidly growing list of computerized functions such as antilock braking, electronic stabilizing, traction controlling, tire pressure monitoring, adaptive cruise controlling, blind-spot detecting, collision warning, lane-departure warning, and emergency brake assisting, one begins to wonder, who's really driving.
The courts have faced disruptive technologies before.
In 1916, the New York Times declared that autopilot systems / aeroplane stabilizers would “make the heavier-than-air machines practically foolproof." Like autonomous vehicles, these aviation advancements were lauded as great safety improvements, and were expected to have a significant impact on liability, making it more likely that autopilot manufacturers would be held to account when planes did crash.
Also in the early 1900s, automatic elevators began to replace manual elevators, and when the initial technology proved dangerous, states began enacting specific safety requirements for elevators. The insurance industry developed a special “elevator liability” insurance, and courts deemed elevators “common carriers” which held operators and manufacturers to the highest duty of care under the law.
In a robot car future, will liability shift from man to machine? Who will carry what type of insurance? And how will litigation change, and what will damages look like?
Jury Finds Agency, DuPont Negligent in Land Case
"A federal jury has found the Bureau of Land Management and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. negligent in the use of an herbicide blamed for damaging thousands of acres of crops across a broad swath of southern Idaho.
“The verdict was welcome news to some of the 130 farmers whose potatoes, sugar beets, grains and corn crops were destroyed for several years when winds blew the powdery herbicide on to their nearby farmland."
"The farmers allege they lost millions of dollars worth of crops from 2000-2004 because the broad spectrum herbicide either killed plants or made land barren."
"The jury deliberated for nearly three days before reaching its unanimous conclusions, ending a trial that lasted more than six weeks by finding DuPont 60 percent at fault and the BLM 40 percent to blame."
The GEC Group provided five days of expert testimony to the jury in the bellwether trial regarding the economic damages suffered by the four bellwether farmers. GEC testified that lost crop income and associated debt-based costs for these four farmers totaled $16.4 million; the jury awarded $16.4 million. GEC collected, managed, and analyzed over 1.6 million documents, interviewed and met with hundreds of farmers, crop buyers and agronomists, and testified in federal court regarding the crop loss and resulting economic damages sustained by the plaintiffs.