Animal law is a specialized area of legal practice involving animals and the people who interact with them. At McCague Borlack LLP, we have a group of lawyers with unique skills providing expertise in this rapidly evolving area of the law.
Our firm's Animal Law Practice Group provides expertise and experience in a broad range of risk management, litigation, and dispute resolution services, including:
1. Liability Issues
2. Professional Liability Issues
3. Regulatory Matters
4. Insurance Coverage
5. Horse Racing
6. Riding and Boarding Stable Exposures
7. Farming and Animal Husbandry Issues
8. Animal Research
9. Transportation
10. Workplace Safety
11. Employment
12. Family law
13. Media relations and crisis planning
First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.
In order to protect limitation periods, especially in cases where liability is yet to be determined, there is an obligation on counsel to identify, name, and pursue all parties who may be liable to the plaintiff(s). However, as the discovery process begins, parties often become aware that they have added in a party that will bear no liability to the plaintiff(s). Often, parties are able to consent to a dismissal or discontinuance without costs; however, there are cases in which defendant(s) will not go out without costs. In these cases, parties can move for a ruling under Rule 23.05...
In 1985, Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was introduced to encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers to settle. This has had the effect of discouraging parties from delaying the judicial process and increasing costs unnecessarily. Rule 49 has had a considerable effect on litigants by virtue of the risk of a large costs award following trial.
To trigger the cost consequences under Rule 49, an offer must meet strict requirements: