As a mass-tort lawyer on the plaintiffs' side, I found this article about the defense of mass torts particularly interesting: "Developing Strategy in Mass Tort Litigation," by A. Michael Pratt and Eric K. Falk. Here's a sample--
There is often an amazing "disconnect" in mass tort litigation between how a company defends itself, and how the plaintiffs prosecute the case against the company. With many mass torts, particularly those involving toxic torts, companies defend themselves based on certain scientific and medical defenses-the product is not capable of causing the disease in question, the dose levels are too low, an alternative explanation exists for the plaintiff's disease, etc. The problem with this basic defense strategy, in many cases, is that the plaintiffs' bar does not necessarily try a medical or scientific case. Instead, they put the company on trial in an attempt to overwhelm the judge and jury with massive volumes of historical evidence, culled from a variety of sources, tending to portray the company as a "bad actor." At the end of this train, almost as an afterthought, is a certain small quantum of evidence which also states, essentially, "oh yes, the plaintiff here does indeed have the disease caused by the defendant's product/service."
I've seen this "disconnect" at work time and time again. Honestly, though, I didn't think that the defense lawyers had caught on. I guess I still have lots to learn about mass-tort litigation.