Judges often end up intervening post-trial in complex cases with conflicting scientific evidence
High-profile lawsuits against large pharmaceutical, personal care and agrochemical companies, whose products are alleged to cause cancer, are a regular fixture in US courtrooms.
Their outcomes appear to follow a familiar pattern. A jury returns a guilty verdict and awards very large damages to plaintiffs, only for the decision to be overruled by a judge, or at least the amount of damages slashed. Experts suggest that this pattern reflects the scientific complexity of the legal cases involved, and they predict that these cases will continue to be primarily appealed rather than settled.