Q: "Why wasn't the Moline methodology challenge raised in the directed verdict motion?" ▾
Answer: The directed verdict motions were filed by trial counsel (Smith Duggan). The Moline methodology challenge — specifically the lack of any dose calculation, the reliance on a compromised study, and the absence of ceramic slip-specific research — became apparent during post-trial analysis. However, the broader causation challenge WAS raised through the Morin 3-element test citation. Sub-C (substantial factor) is genuinely disputed as to preservation, and we acknowledge Sub-D may face preservation difficulty. Our primary JNOV arguments are Sub-A (product identification) and Sub-B (product composition), both fully preserved.
Q: "How do you distinguish Doull v. Foster on the causation standard?" ▾
Answer: Doull v. Foster addressed general tort causation and reaffirmed but-for causation as the default Massachusetts standard. It did not address multi-source toxic exposure cases. O'Connor v. Raymark remains controlling for asbestos cases specifically, applying the substantial contributing factor test. However, even under the substantial factor standard, plaintiff must prove the specific defendant's product was a substantial — not merely a possible — contributing factor. With only "once or twice" exposure testimony and no dose analysis, the evidence fails under either standard.
Q: "What about the jury's assessment of witness credibility?" ▾
Answer: We respect the jury's role, but JNOV is appropriate where no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff on the evidence presented. On product identification, the testimony is "once or twice" over 17 years — this is legally insufficient under established Massachusetts precedent. On the New Trial motion, the jury's credibility assessment was made without access to the most devastating impeachment evidence against Dr. Moline: the false statements to Congress, the Bell fraud litigation, the $133.5M in overturned verdicts. The court restricted cross-examination on these points. A new trial is warranted so the jury can assess credibility with the full picture.
