Justia Products Liability Opinion Summaries

A fatal car accident involving an eighteen-year-old driving a 2013 Toyota Scion led to a lawsuit by the driver’s estate against Toyota and Subaru, who had jointly developed the vehicle. The plaintiff alleged negligence, product liability, and violations of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, claiming that design defects caused the occupant compartment to collapse and a fire to spread, ultimately resulting in the driver’s death. During discovery, the plaintiff requested extensive documents and depositions, including English translations of Japanese-language materials. Toyota and Subaru objected to several document requests and deposition topics, and disputes arose regarding the timing and sufficiency of their responses.The Superior Court of Robeson County granted the plaintiff’s motions to compel, ordered the production of additional documents (including English translations), and mandated that Toyota and Subaru’s corporate representatives testify to all noticed deposition topics without further objection. When the defendants failed to comply as ordered, the trial court imposed sanctions, deeming certain facts established against them—including elements of duty and breach in the plaintiff’s product liability claim—and struck their regulatory compliance defense. Toyota and Subaru appealed, challenging the discovery and sanctions orders.The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the sanctions order and reversed the requirement to translate documents but otherwise affirmed the discovery order, holding that most of the trial court’s actions were not an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed only the remaining issues in the discovery order. It held that the trial court erred by enforcing a fourteen-day deadline for objections to document requests in deposition notices (rather than the seven days required by the rules), and by waiving defendants’ objections to deposition topics for not seeking a protective order. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the relevant portions of the Court of Appeals’ decision, instructed it to vacate the discovery order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sessoms v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc" on Justia Law

Buyers of over-the-counter nasal decongestants containing oral phenylephrine brought numerous class actions against drug manufacturers and retailers, alleging that for years these companies sold and advertised decongestant products they knew to be ineffective. The plaintiffs claimed that scientific studies, particularly since 2016, had shown oral phenylephrine to be no better than a placebo at relieving congestion, yet the companies continued to market their products as effective decongestants and complied with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements. The FDA, despite mounting evidence, did not remove oral phenylephrine’s designation as an effective decongestant under its regulations.The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated nearly one hundred class actions and transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting New York statutory and common-law claims as well as a federal RICO claim. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) expressly preempted the state law claims because the drugs’ labels complied with FDA requirements, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the RICO claim. The court also dismissed a Lanham Act claim brought by one pharmacy plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the FDCA expressly preempts most of the state law claims because the federal regime requires manufacturers to follow the FDA-approved labeling, but it vacated the dismissal for claims regarding “Maximum Strength” labeling and brand-name drugs approved via the New Drug Application process, remanding those for further proceedings. The court affirmed dismissal of the RICO claim, adopting the indirect purchaser rule, and upheld denial of the pharmacy’s motion for reconsideration regarding its Lanham Act claim. View "Yousefzadeh v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc." on Justia Law

A professional track and field athlete received a bottle of Gatorade Recovery Gummies at an award ceremony hosted by Gatorade, which were labeled as “NSF Certified for Sport,” indicating independent testing for banned substances. After consuming the gummies, the athlete submitted a routine drug test that later returned positive for cardarine, a banned performance-enhancing drug, resulting in immediate suspension from elite competition. Subsequent investigation revealed that the gummies lot the athlete received had never been NSF certified, and Gatorade was aware of the mislabeling before distributing the product. The athlete suffered significant consequences, including loss of eligibility to compete, loss of a scholarship, and forfeiture of endorsement opportunities.The athlete initiated legal action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging strict products liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Texas’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed all claims. It found no “cognizable injury outside of purely economic damages” for the strict liability, negligence, and misrepresentation claims, applying New York’s economic loss doctrine. Additional claims were dismissed based on statutory definitions and insufficient allegations of extreme conduct or distress.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the tortious interference, consumer protection, and emotional distress claims. However, the court recognized uncertainty in New York law regarding tort recovery for nonconsensual bodily changes detectable only by laboratory testing and the boundaries of the economic loss doctrine. Accordingly, the Second Circuit deferred decision and certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals concerning the scope of the economic loss doctrine and whether the athlete’s injury is cognizable in tort under New York law. View "Asinga v. Gatorade Co." on Justia Law

A Massachusetts resident, Barbara, began smoking Marlboro and Parliament cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris as a teenager and continued for decades, becoming addicted and unable to quit despite many attempts. In 2015, after finally quitting, she was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer and died two years later. Her husband and two children, individually and on behalf of her estate, sued Philip Morris for wrongful death, alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, negligent design and marketing, fraud, civil conspiracy, and deceptive trade practices.The Superior Court (trial court) dismissed claims against other defendants and tried the remaining claims against Philip Morris before a jury. The jury found for the plaintiffs on most claims, awarding $8.014 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. The judge, after post-trial motions, reduced (remitted) the punitive damages to about $56 million—seven times the compensatory damages—finding the original award excessive. The judge also denied Philip Morris’s motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, concluding that the jury was not swayed by passion or prejudice and that the compensatory and punitive damages were supported by the evidence.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in denying a new trial or further remittitur, and that the remitted punitive damages were constitutionally permissible in light of the egregious conduct by Philip Morris. The court also rejected Philip Morris’s arguments that the trial should have been bifurcated, that a higher burden of proof was required for punitive damages, that federal preemption barred certain claims, and that evidentiary rulings were improper. The judgment and denial of post-trial motions were affirmed. View "Fontaine v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff purchased a vehicle in 2017 and later alleged it was defective, suing the manufacturer in 2021. The parties eventually settled, with the plaintiff surrendering the vehicle and dismissing the suit, and the manufacturer agreeing to pay $100,000. The settlement specified the plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees, and the manufacturer would pay the amount determined by the trial court upon noticed motion. After the settlement was reported to the Superior Court of San Diego County, the court ordered dismissal within 45 days. When no dismissal was filed, the clerk issued notice that the case would be deemed dismissed without prejudice on August 15, 2023, unless a party showed good cause otherwise. No such cause was shown, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for attorney fees.The motion for attorney fees was opposed by the manufacturer, arguing it was untimely under California Rules of Court, as it was not served within 180 days of the dismissal date. The plaintiff countered that the 180-day deadline did not apply, claiming the case had not been formally dismissed and no judgment had been entered. The Superior Court of San Diego County disagreed, finding the case had been dismissed on August 15, 2023, per the clerk’s notice and court rules, and denied the motion as untimely. The plaintiff appealed the denial, and a signed minute order dismissing the complaint was later entered, but the court maintained that the earlier date controlled.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the matter de novo. It held that a voluntary dismissal, even if not appealable, starts the clock for filing a motion for attorney fees when it concludes the litigation. The court found the case was dismissed on August 15, 2023, and the plaintiff failed to timely serve the fee motion. The order denying attorney fees was affirmed. View "Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC" on Justia Law

A patient with a long history of severe depression and multiple suicide attempts underwent 95 electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) treatments at a Nebraska hospital between 2014 and 2016. The ECT was administered using a device manufactured by Somatics, LLC. After the treatments, the patient experienced significant memory loss and was diagnosed with a neurocognitive disorder. In 2020, he filed suit against Somatics in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging negligence, strict product liability, breach of warranties, violation of Nebraska’s Consumer Protection Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation, primarily claiming that Somatics failed to adequately warn of the risks associated with ECT.The district court dismissed the claims under Nebraska’s Consumer Protection Act and for fraudulent misrepresentation, merged the strict liability and breach of implied warranty claims, and granted summary judgment to Somatics on the design defect, manufacturing defect, and breach of express warranty claims. The remaining claims for negligence and strict liability, both based on failure to warn, were merged for trial. The jury found that while Somatics failed to provide adequate warnings, this failure was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and awarded no damages. The district court denied the plaintiff’s post-trial motions, including for a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions de novo for summary judgment and for abuse of discretion on evidentiary and procedural rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the design defect claim, correctly merged the negligence and strict liability claims, gave an appropriate jury instruction on proximate cause, and did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence and expert testimony. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Thelen v. Somatics, LLC" on Justia Law

Several individuals from five different states purchased ovens with front-mounted burner knobs manufactured by a major appliance company. They allege that these ovens have a defect causing the stovetop burners to turn on unintentionally, sometimes resulting in gas leaks. The plaintiffs claim they were unaware of this defect at the time of purchase, but that the manufacturer had prior knowledge of the issue through consumer complaints sent to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and reviews posted on the company’s website. The plaintiffs assert that, had they known about the defect, they would have paid less for the ovens or not purchased them at all.The plaintiffs filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging violations of federal warranty law, fraud by omission, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection statutes. The district court found that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, as they alleged a concrete injury, but dismissed all claims for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their state common law fraud and statutory consumer protection claims, while the manufacturer argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing because they plausibly alleged economic injury from overpaying for a defective product. The court further held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the manufacturer’s knowledge of the defect and its safety risks, particularly because the CPSC had sent incident reports directly to the manufacturer. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of most state law fraud and consumer protection claims, except for the Illinois common law fraud claim, which failed for lack of a duty to disclose under Illinois law. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Tapply v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

Two minor boys, referred to as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, were coerced by a trafficker into producing pornographic content, which was later posted on Twitter. Despite reporting the content to Twitter, the platform did not immediately remove it, leading to significant views and retweets. The boys and their mother made multiple attempts to have the content removed, but Twitter only acted after being prompted by the Department of Homeland Security.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, primarily based on the immunity provided under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The court found that Twitter was immune from liability for most of the claims, including those under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and California product-defect claims, as these claims treated Twitter as a publisher of third-party content.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Twitter is immune from liability under § 230 for the TVPRA claim and the California product-defect claim related to the failure to remove posts and the creation of search features that amplify child-pornography posts. However, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims for negligence per se and their product-liability theory based on defective reporting-infrastructure design are not barred by § 230 immunity, as these claims do not arise from Twitter's role as a publisher. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the TVPRA and certain product-defect claims, reversed the dismissal of the negligence per se and defective reporting-infrastructure design claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "DOE 1 V. TWITTER, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves Eastern Maine Medical Center and eight other Maine hospitals (the Hospitals) who filed a 509-page complaint against various businesses and individuals (the Opioid Sellers) involved in the marketing and distribution of prescription opioids. The Hospitals alleged that the Opioid Sellers created illegitimate demand for opioids and unlawfully increased supply, leading to an opioid epidemic that caused the Hospitals to incur high costs for treating patients with opioid misuse, addiction, and dependency, with only partial reimbursement from insurance.The Business and Consumer Docket (Duddy, J.) dismissed the Hospitals' complaint. The court found that the complaint did not comply with the requirement for a "short and plain statement" of the claim but chose to dismiss it based on the legal insufficiency of the claims. The court concluded that the Hospitals could not recover under any of their legal theories, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy. The court also denied the Hospitals' request for leave to amend their complaint.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's dismissal. The court held that the Hospitals' claims were legally insufficient. Specifically, the court found that the Hospitals did not have a direct negligence claim, as they did not suffer harm directly caused by the Opioid Sellers. The fraud and misrepresentation claims failed due to lack of reliance by the Hospitals on the Opioid Sellers' misrepresentations. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed because the Hospitals did not confer a benefit on the Opioid Sellers. The public nuisance claim failed as the Hospitals did not suffer a special injury different in kind from the public. Lastly, the civil conspiracy claim was dismissed as it required an underlying tort, which was not present. The court concluded that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be remedied by amendment. View "Eastern Maine Medical Center v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

The case involves the plaintiffs, including the estate of Carson Bride and three minors, who suffered severe harassment and bullying through the YOLO app, leading to emotional distress and, in Carson Bride's case, suicide. YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging app that promised to unmask and ban users who engaged in bullying or harassment but allegedly failed to do so. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YOLO, claiming violations of state tort and product liability laws.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability. The court found that the claims sought to hold YOLO responsible for third-party content posted on its app, which is protected under the CDA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims, holding that these claims were based on YOLO's promise to unmask and ban abusive users, not on a failure to moderate content. The court found that the misrepresentation claims were analogous to a breach of promise, which is not protected by Section 230. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' product liability claims, holding that Section 230 precludes liability because these claims attempted to hold YOLO responsible as a publisher of third-party content. The court concluded that the product liability claims were essentially about the failure to moderate content, which is protected under the CDA. View "Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law