Hudjohn v. S&G MACHINERY CO.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that expert’s testimony that the “inhalation of toxins may be accounting for some degree of this impairment” failed to state reasonable probability of causation because it was stated in terms of possibility, not probability
• holding that that expert’s opinion must establish a probability of causation
• noting that the legislature enacted ORS 656.019 \in response to the Supreme Court's holding in Smothers \
• noting that the legislature enacted ORS 656.019 “in response to the Supreme Court’s holding in Smothers”
• noting that exceptions to the rule of expert testimony “appear to have been limited to cases of simple injuries, generally without a substantial possibility of alternative causation”
• explaining that “[t]he requirement of [expert medical] testimony . . . is designed to ‘prevent jurors from speculating about causation in cases where that determination requires expertise beyond the knowledge and experience of an ordinary lay person.””

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).