Evaluative adjectives in the product liability cases on the example of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The present article is concerned with the evaluative adjectives to be encountered in a case involving the liability for a toxic pharmaceutical product (Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals). In the course of investigation, the comparative background is established in which the law of torts is characterized, specifically product liability in the United States, as an area of law which continues to play a significant role insofar as litigation is much more frequent here than anywhere else in the world. Furthermore, evaluative adjectives are typified as statements related to subjectivism. Although the genre of judgment itself can be characterized by considerable consistency when it comes to structure, it turns out rather difficult to point to some repetitive patterns that judges use in communicating their stance. Thus, one might say that epistemicity cannot be contained in any sort of neat equation that would allow us to determine to what extent exactly the judgment is a product of judge’s own opinion, to what extent it represents the ‘common sense’ of the community and to what extent it subsumes the laws applicable and quoted in a given case.