1E9Ct5D

isk of inconsistent results or, worse, irreparable prejudice that may come from taking aposition in an action (such as self-incrimination), a trial court may seriously entertainstaying a lawsuit until the tangential actions are played out. 26Stay rulings are typicallysubject to the court’s discretion.Another judicial doctrine that may impact your decision whether to fight in multiplevenues, or consolidate, is collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel prevents the relitigationof a contested issue, and it can apply to both determinations of fact and law.This can cut for or against you as a defendant. Thus, it is possible that a ruling orverdict in one case may apply in another. Even if the second court does not actuallyadopt the issue as fully resolved, it may be persuaded by the reasoning used by the firsttribunal. This consideration is especially important when the group of victims includesminors who have not yet brought claims, and will not be forced to do so until reachingtheir age of majority. 27the Senate, and criminal prosecutors. In other catastrophic contexts, it is not unusual to have torespond at the same time to OSHA, FEMA, the EPA, the NTSB and other regulatory agencies.26 Streamlining litigation will increase efficiency and limit defense fees and costs. Additionally, it willreduce the risk of inconsistent factual and legal determinations, and possibly prevent witnesses andthe company from facing criminal exposure. Another key issue involves what impact evidencedeveloped in administrative and criminal proceedings will have in the civil case. For instance, sometypes of standards and findings by government agencies (e.g., the NTSB) are excluded from civillitigation. Others are admissible. For instance, the California Supreme Court has ruled that OSHAregulations are admissible to support proof of negligence. Elsener v. Uveges, 34 Cal.4 th 915 (2004).27 States have different limitations periods for minors, which do not begin to run until the age or eighteenor twenty-one. Defense counsel handled a Montana case involving severe injuries to a young motherand infant. The mother proceeded with her lawsuit, but the infant’s prognosis was uncertain. Giventhe questionable liability facts, the client was determined to try the case. After a fortunate defenseverdict against the mother’s claim, counsel is now armed with arguments that the jury’s finding of “noliability” in the mother’s case should bar the infant’s case, if it is ever brought.