Justia Products Liability Opinion Summaries

A maintenance worker was injured when a small derrick tipped over during work on a defective transformer. Two years after the incident, the injured individual and his spouse filed suit against the derrick’s manufacturer and several corporate entities that leased the equipment to the worker’s employer. The complaint was filed on the last day permitted by the Texas statute of limitations. Plaintiffs received service citations the next day, and forwarded them to a process server three days later. Service was completed about fifty days after filing, with delays attributed to confusion over defendants’ identities and addresses, as well as disruptions caused by a courthouse fire in an unrelated case involving plaintiffs’ counsel.After defendants were served, they removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court dismissed the claims against the manufacturer for insufficient diligence in service and granted summary judgment for the corporate defendants. The district court found that plaintiffs had waited too long at several points—three days before forwarding citations, several weeks before following up with the process server, and additional days before clarifying instructions—thus concluding that plaintiffs failed to exercise sufficient diligence as required by Texas law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court applied a more demanding standard than Texas law requires. Under Texas law, a plaintiff must show ordinary diligence in effecting service after timely filing suit. The appellate court found that plaintiffs’ explanations for the short delays, including handling a complex service task involving multiple corporate defendants and temporary distractions from an unrelated courthouse fire, were sufficient to raise a genuine factual dispute regarding diligence. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Larkins v. S.D.P. Manufacturing" on Justia Law

American Airlines contracted with a uniform manufacturer to provide new apparel for its employees. After distribution, many employees reported health issues, including skin and respiratory symptoms, allegedly connected to wearing or being near the uniforms. The airline allowed employees to stop wearing the uniforms, ultimately replacing them. Laboratory and government testing found low levels of chemicals in the uniforms but concluded these were unlikely to cause the reported symptoms. Multiple alternative causes were identified, and the scientific evidence did not support the employees' claims.A group of employees sued American Airlines, the manufacturer, and others in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, initially seeking class certification under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). After several amended complaints and significant discovery disputes, the plaintiffs dropped their request for class certification, briefly raising questions about the court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. They later re-pled their class allegations in a fourth amended complaint, and the district court determined it retained jurisdiction. The defendants moved for summary judgment and to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, arguing these experts were essential to prove defect and causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court properly retained jurisdiction under CAFA after plaintiffs reasserted class claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ experts due to unreliable methodologies. It further held that, without expert evidence, the plaintiffs could not establish a defect or causation under strict or negligent products liability. The court also held that neither the Tweedy doctrine nor res ipsa loquitur provided an evidentiary shortcut under the case facts, since the alleged injuries did not inherently indicate a product defect or negligence. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Zurbriggen v Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc." on Justia Law

An employee at a food processing plant was severely injured during a scheduled inspection of a boiler used to heat cooking oil. The boiler, manufactured and periodically inspected by a third-party company, exploded while the employee and his supervisor were checking its safety devices. The explosion caused significant burns to both men. The boiler had been manufactured twenty-one years earlier, and had undergone both regular quarterly and annual inspections by the manufacturer, with no issues reported. An inspection of the accident scene took place within weeks, but the injured employee was not notified or present for that inspection.After the accident, the injured employee filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, alleging that the manufacturer was liable under theories of strict products liability and negligence, claiming defects in design, manufacturing, and marketing, and inadequate inspections. During litigation, the plaintiff’s expert suggested that a leak in the boiler’s coils likely caused the explosion but admitted an inability to identify a specific defect or rule out numerous other possible causes. The district court granted summary judgment for the manufacturer, finding no evidence of a defect, breach of duty, or proximate causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence to show either that the boiler was defective or that the manufacturer’s inspections were negligent in a way that proximately caused the injuries. The court emphasized that conjecture and speculation were insufficient to survive summary judgment, and that the plaintiff’s evidence did not exclude other possible causes or establish the manufacturer’s liability. View "Rhodes v. Fulton Thermal Corp." on Justia Law

A woman developed mesothelioma and lung cancer, allegedly due to exposure to asbestos dust brought home on her husband’s work clothing. Her husband, a professional insulator, installed asbestos-containing insulation on turbines manufactured by a defendant company at a Maryland power plant in the 1960s. Facilities for workers to shower or change at the worksite were not provided, so he regularly brought dusty work clothes home. The woman, who never visited the worksite, handled and laundered these clothes, potentially exposing herself to asbestos fibers. After her death, her estate continued the personal injury and wrongful death action against the manufacturer and others.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims, including strict liability for design defect. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment concerning the design defect claim and remanded the case. Following further proceedings, the Superior Court again granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that as a bystander, the plaintiff could not recover on a strict liability theory. This led to a second appeal, after which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals certified to the Supreme Court of Maryland the question of whether, under Maryland law, a household member exposed to asbestos dust brought home by a worker must prove an additional element of duty in a strict liability design defect claim.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that a household member in the plaintiff’s position is not required to prove the additional element of duty beyond the four elements of strict liability for design defect as set forth in Phipps v. General Motors Corp. The court clarified that, unlike failure to warn and negligence claims, duty is not a required element for strict liability design defect claims, whether for users, consumers, or household members exposed through no fault of their own. View "Quinn v. General Electric Co." on Justia Law

A workplace accident in 2020 resulted in the death of Colby Eldon Johnson, who was using a self-unloading bed manufactured by SRM-Double L, LLC (“SRM”) on his employer’s truck. Colby’s father, Harry Johnson, filed suit against SRM and others, alleging products liability and negligence. During pretrial proceedings, Johnson failed to submit timely responses to SRM’s discovery requests and did not file his opposition to SRM’s summary judgment motion by the court-ordered deadline. He later filed late motions and exhibits, citing scheduling conflicts and unresolved discovery issues.The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Gooding County, granted SRM’s motions to strike Johnson’s untimely filings, finding no valid justification for the delay. Consequently, the court treated SRM’s summary judgment motion as unopposed and granted summary judgment in SRM’s favor, finding Johnson’s claims barred by Idaho statutes. The court also awarded attorney fees and sanctions against Johnson and his counsel under Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 37, based on alleged misrepresentations and discovery delays.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision to strike Johnson’s untimely filings, finding no abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the lower court failed to analyze whether SRM had met its burden under Rule 56(a), which is required even if the motion is unopposed. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney fees under Rule 37 for discovery violations but reversed the sanctions under Rule 11 because the only support for the sanctions was inadmissible hearsay. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits. Attorney fees on appeal were denied, as no party had yet prevailed. View "Johnson v. SRM-Double L, LLC" on Justia Law

A police sergeant was injured during a training exercise when his department-issued semi-automatic pistol discharged while holstered, resulting in a gunshot wound to his leg. He could not explain what caused the trigger to be actuated but maintained that his hand was not on the weapon at the moment it discharged. He and his wife sued the firearm manufacturer, alleging strict products liability and negligence, and asserting that the pistol’s design was defective—particularly, that it lacked an external safety mechanism, making it more susceptible to unintentional discharge.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiffs sought to introduce expert testimony to establish that the design defect, specifically the lack of an external safety, caused the injury. The district court excluded the experts’ causation opinions, finding them unreliable because the experts did not adequately address the specifics of the incident or test their theories under similar circumstances. The court then granted summary judgment for the manufacturer, holding that under New York law, expert testimony as to proximate causation was necessary due to the complexity of the issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision to exclude the experts’ causation opinions, finding the exclusion within the court’s discretion. However, the appellate court held that New York law does not require expert testimony on proximate causation in all product liability cases, especially where jurors can use their own judgment, aided by other evidence, to assess causation. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could decide, based on the design-defect evidence and the circumstances of the accident, whether an external safety would have prevented the injury. The Second Circuit therefore vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hayes v Board of Education of the City of Chicago" on Justia Law

A police sergeant was injured during a training exercise when his department-issued firearm, a Sig Sauer P320 pistol, discharged while holstered. The officer did not know what had caused the trigger to move but testified that his hand was not on the weapon at the time. Emergency reports provided a slightly different account, suggesting the pistol discharged while being holstered. The officer and his wife sued the manufacturer, alleging the pistol was defectively designed, in particular because it lacked an external safety, and argued that this defect led to the injury.The case was first reviewed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiffs offered expert testimony to support their claims about the pistol’s defective design and to establish that the absence of an external safety was the cause of the injury. The district court accepted the experts’ opinions regarding the alleged design defect but excluded their causation opinions, finding them insufficiently tied to the facts of the accident. The court reasoned that the experts could not reliably explain how the accident happened or how an external safety would have prevented it. The district court then granted summary judgment for the defendant, concluding that under New York law, expert testimony was required to establish proximate causation in this case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the causation opinions of the experts. However, the appellate court held that New York law does not always require expert testimony on proximate causation if a jury can use its own judgment along with the evidence presented. The court found that the jury could rely on the accepted design-defect opinions, the witness’s account, and its own evaluation of the firearm and holster. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "SLT Imports Inc v. SAR Transport Systems Pvt Ltd" on Justia Law

A police sergeant was injured when his department-issued pistol accidentally discharged during a training exercise. He did not know what caused the trigger to actuate but testified that the pistol fired while holstered and his hand was not on the weapon. The injured officer and his spouse sued the firearm manufacturer, alleging that the pistol was defectively designed because it lacked an external safety, and claimed that this defect caused the injury. They sought to support their claims with expert testimony asserting that the pistol’s design was unreasonably dangerous due to its lack of external safety features and that an external safety would have prevented the incident.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York excluded the causation opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts, finding that these experts could not reliably explain how the accident happened or how an external safety would have prevented it. The district court then granted summary judgment to the manufacturer, holding that, under New York law, expert testimony was required to establish proximate causation because the issue was too complex for a jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the experts’ causation opinions, as they were insufficiently linked to the specifics of the accident. However, the appellate court determined that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. The Second Circuit clarified that New York law does not require expert testimony to establish proximate causation in all product liability cases; jurors may use their common sense and the available evidence, including unchallenged expert opinions about the product’s design, to decide if the alleged defect caused the injury. The appellate court also rejected the manufacturer’s argument based on New York’s optional equipment doctrine. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Digital LLC" on Justia Law

A police sergeant suffered a gunshot injury to his leg when his department-issued Sig Sauer P320 pistol discharged while he was conducting a training exercise. He did not know what caused the trigger to move, but testified that the pistol was holstered and his hand was not on the gun at the time. Emergency responders’ documentation, however, suggested the gun discharged while he was still holstering it. The injured officer and his spouse brought strict products liability and negligence claims against the manufacturer, alleging that the P320 was defectively designed because it lacked an external safety, making it prone to accidental discharges.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York excluded the causation opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts, finding their analysis unreliable because they did not explain how the accident happened or how an external safety would have prevented it. The district court then granted summary judgment for the manufacturer, concluding New York law required expert testimony to establish proximate causation in a case involving the operation of a complex product like a firearm, and the plaintiffs could not meet that burden without admissible expert causation opinions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the experts’ causation opinions, as they were not sufficiently grounded in the facts of the accident. However, the Second Circuit ruled that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court held that, under New York law, expert testimony on causation is not always required if a jury can determine causation based on its own judgment, the characteristics of the product, and the evidence presented. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Colwell v. Sig Sauer, Inc." on Justia Law

A plaintiff alleged that she suffered serious eye injuries, including blindness in one eye, after receiving an injection of a pharmaceutical product manufactured by the defendant. The specific unit used was from a lot later recalled due to the possible presence of silicone particulates. The plaintiff had a history of eye conditions and prior treatments but argued that her injuries followed the use of the recalled product. She presented two experts on causation: a retained ophthalmologist who provided a report and deposition, and her treating physician, who did not provide a written expert report.The Superior Court, Law Division, denied the defendant’s motions to bar the experts’ testimony and for summary judgment. The court did not conduct the “gatekeeping” inquiry regarding expert reliability required by New Jersey law. The defendant appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed. It found the experts’ opinions to be inadmissible net opinions, lacking evidentiary support for the proposed theory of causation and methodology. The Appellate Division thus also reversed the denial of summary judgment, holding the plaintiff had not established causation.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that its decision in In re Accutane Litigation requires trial courts to resolve disputes about the reliability of expert testimony by undertaking a “rigorous” gatekeeping analysis, potentially including a hearing under N.J.R.E. 104. The Supreme Court found the record insufficient for this determination and ordered a remand so the trial court could conduct the proper reliability inquiry. The Court held the retained expert’s report was not a net opinion but left open whether the treating physician’s testimony could be admitted, depending on whether a proper expert report is served. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Beavan v. Allergan U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law