Site Search
Professionals 104 results
Capabilities 43 results
Practice Area
Winston has decades of experience representing clients in international arbitrations around the world. Representing clients in both commercial and investor-state international arbitrations, we are well known by the leading players in the global arbitration arena. Our integrated team of attorneys enforces awards worldwide, knows every angle of international disputes, and has a robust understanding of our client’s industries.
Practice Area
Trial skills matter—even in a world where few disputes ever see the inside of a courtroom. Winston has built a reputation as a trial lawyers’ firm, featuring seasoned litigators who leverage extensive courtroom experience to meet our clients’ business and legal objectives. Our long history of taking cases to trial—and winning—provides our clients with tremendous settlement leverage with their adversaries, as well as a substantial likelihood of a favorable resolution if, and when, they go to trial.
Industry
Winston offers a full-service energy practice. With four decades of experience handling a broad array of services for participants across the energy industry and in key markets worldwide, our practitioners have developed a deep familiarity and keen sense of the market. Our experience spans electric generation, transmission, distribution, and fuel supply and transportation in the power sector—including conventional and renewable resources—as well as the upstream, midstream, downstream, and oilfield services segments in the oil and gas sector. Additionally, our team is at the forefront of the flourishing market for energy transition, and we bring practical experience, perspective, and innovative thinking to this rapidly expanding segment of energy sector.
Experience 7 results
Experience
|July 26, 2024
Winston represented DRONE VOLT in its rights issue on Euronext Growth
Experience
|April 28, 2023
Nabbed Two Big Wins for Motorola in Billion-Dollar Suits Over Cell Phone Safety
Insights & News 454 results
In the Media
|December 4, 2024
|Less Than 1 Min Read
Winston Partner to Join Webinar On Consolidated Appropriations Act
On December 4, 2024, Winston Partner Amy Gordon will be participating in a webinar discussing the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA). Amy, along with a team of industry experts, will discuss:
Product Liability & Mass Torts Digest
|November 21, 2024
|6 Min Read
Proximate Cause with Teeth: Recent Case-Dispositive Expert Exclusions in Product Liability Cases
Under both strict product liability and negligence theories, plaintiffs must establish proximate causation where there is a reasonable certainty that the defendant’s acts caused the injury. Several recent cases have emphasized the Daubert requirement that expert testimony supporting proximate cause for product liability claims must be non-speculative and backed by reliable, reproducible, scientific methodologies.
Sponsorship
|November 19, 2024
Winston’s Financial Services Industry Group is a proud sponsor of the Tenth Annual Government Investigations & Civil Litigations Institute (GICLI) Meeting in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Other Results 23 results
Site Content
What Is Bradford Hill Criteria?
The Bradford Hill criteria (also known as “Hill’s criteria”) are a set of nine criteria first proposed by the epidemiologist, Sir Austin Bradford Hill, in 1965 to evaluate the strength of a causal association between two variables. In the product liability context, plaintiff experts frequently utilize the Bradford Hill criteria to purportedly establish general causation. The Bradford Hill criteria include considerations such as the strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy. Several recent decisions in large federal multidistrict litigations have closely scrutinized and ultimately, excluded, improper Bradford Hill analyses conducted by plaintiff experts.
Site Content
In the product liability context, general causation is the legal and scientific determination of whether the product in question has the inherent capability to cause the alleged injury under certain circumstances. Establishment of general causation is a critical aspect of a plaintiff’s case, and typically requires scientific evidence, such as epidemiology or toxicology, and expert testimony to establish a causal connection between the product’s design, manufacturing, or warnings and the injury or injuries at issue. As contrasted to specific causation, the focus in a general causation inquiry is on whether the product or exposure, as a general matter, can cause the type of injury claimed by the plaintiff. A general causation inquiry does not assess any facts unique to a particular plaintiff.
Site Content
Specific causation is the legal and scientific determination of whether the product in question was the direct cause of a plaintiff's specific injury. While general causation inquires whether a broader connection exists between a product and a type of harm, a specific causation assessment focuses on the unique circumstances surrounding a particular plaintiff's case. It typically requires expert testimony demonstrating that the alleged defect or issue in the product was responsible for the specific injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Alternative explanations for the plaintiff’s specific injuries must also be ruled out—typically via a differential etiology—for specific causation to be established.