Joseph Lavitt

Lawyers offer fullest glimpse yet of arguments in Toyota case

Joseph Lavitt quoted in Daily Journal, July 29, 2013 (registration required)

UC Berkeley School of Law professor Joseph Lavitt said in an email that if evidence shows a brake override system would have halted Uno’s car, “any ‘state of the art’ defense by Toyota may be seriously undermined.” On the other hand, Lavitt said, “If Toyota demonstrates that its brake/acceleration configuration was the safest in use at the time of sale, it may be difficult to prove that a practically alternative design was available.”

Joseph Lavitt Examines BP Spill Costs, Liability

Bloomberg TV, May 28, 2010 Host Margaret Brennan

Initially there are the response costs: the costs of cleaning up and remediating the oil leak. The situation in the Gulf is complicated by the fact that the hurricane season may approach and force some of this spilled oil on shore. Secondly, there will be potentially fines and penalties owed under the Clean Water Act…. Finally, there is damage to the natural resources and damage to the persons and businesses that operated the Gulf. There is recreation, there is commercial fishing, there is tourism…. As the oil pours out, the litigation pours in.

Joseph Lavitt Opines on Malicious Prosecution Claim against Manatt Firm

The Daily Journal, May 10, 2010 by Kari Hamanaka (requires registration; go to G:\Law School in the News\News Clips for article)

“At this stage, the decision is detrimental, but not decisive with respect to Manatt’s reputation because the suit has not has not reached its conclusion,” said Joseph Lavitt, a law professor…. “Manatt may never be found liable for malicious prosecution because there are other elements to be considered, including the element of malice. If Manatt is found to have acted maliciously that would constitute, in my view, a substantial blow to its professional reputation.”

Joseph Lavitt Thinks Storm Ruling Leaves Insurance Issue Unresolved

MSN Money, October 9, 2009 by The Associated Press

Joseph Lavitt, a Berkeley Law School professor who teaches insurance law, said the Supreme Court disagreed with part of the 5th Circuit’s ruling but didn’t address whether insurers are liable for damage “when either the wind or the water could have caused the loss without the other and they acted at the same time. The Corbans’ battle is far from over. Either party may yet prevail under today’s ruling,” he said.