Justia Products Liability Opinion Summaries

In the 1960’s, Hellam worked at his grandfather’s boiler business, MBS, and was exposed to asbestos-containing products, including Crane’s, while refurbishing boilers. Hellam sued Crane and others after he developed mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Hellam reached settlements with several defendants. A jury awarded him $937,882.56 in economic damages and $4.5 million in noneconomic damages on his design-defect claim, allocating 75 percent of the fault to MBS, 13 percent to Western Plumbing, seven percent to Crane, and the remainder to other defendants. The court of appeal affirmed. Meanwhile, Hellam disclosed pre-verdict settlements that allocated 50 percent of settlement proceeds to Hellam’s personal-injury claims and 50 percent to any future wrongful-death claims by Hellam’s sons. The trial court approved that allocation, ruled that it would apply 17.2 percent of the pre-verdict settlement proceeds as a setoff against Crane’s liability for economic damages, and ordered Hellam to provide unredacted versions of the agreements for its review. Hellam had total settlement proceeds of $2,192,500 from nine defendants. The court of appeal affirmed, reclassifying one settlement as post, rather than pre-verdict. The court upheld the 50/50 allocation of proceeds, the setoff for pre-verdict settlements, denial of Crane’s request to review unredacted versions of the agreements, and refusal to apply a setoff for possible recoveries from asbestos bankruptcy trusts. View "Hellam v. Crane Co." on Justia Law

Neal and Bonnie Messer owned a building located in close proximity to a building owned by Steve Forster and Daniel Krebs. An explosion occurred in the Forster/Krebs building and subsequently damaged the Messers' building. B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc. held a lease on the west half of the Forster/Krebs building. B&B stored two hot oil trucks inside the building. The trucks were a 2005 vehicle designed and manufactured by Energy Fabrication, and a 2009 "knockoff" truck jointly constructed by B&B and JB's Welding through reverse engineering of an EnerFab vehicle. A hot oil truck holds various chemicals to flush and clean oil wells and lines, including propane. An investigation into the explosion determined both trucks were storing propane at the time of the explosion, and the source of the explosion allegedly started in the B&B leased space. The investigation also indicated that the explosion was a result of a propane leak from the "knockoff" truck. The Messers filed claims against both B&B and JB as a result of the explosion: JB for damage to their building under both theories of strict products liability as a manufacturer of the reverse engineered truck and negligence in construction of the truck. They alleged that the EnerFab vehicle design included an electronic failsafe control valve for the propane storage which acts as a shutoff safety feature in case manual control valves fail to close or leak, and the reverse engineered truck did not include a failsafe control valve. JB moved for summary judgment and dismissal of the claims. At the hearing, the Messers presented the affidavit of an expert witness who stated that the failure to install an electronic failsafe shutoff control valve rendered the "knockoff" truck unreasonably dangerous when it was accepted by B&B, and JB was negligent in failing to design and manufacture the firebox assembly with that control valve. In granting JB's motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that JB only welded the shell of the truck including the firebox and propane lines, and had nothing to do with the propane system, valves, or decision to install automatic shutoffs. The Supreme Court reversed: the record showed a factual dispute existed as to whether JB was a manufacturer under a theory of strict liability. "[R]easonable issues of material fact exist as to JB's status as a manufacturer of the truck, and whether JB's alleged failure to install the electronic shutoff valves was the proximate cause of the Messers' injuries. Because this status is undetermined, whether JB holds a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design or manufacture of the truck, or holds a duty to warn of the inherit danger of the vehicle, depends on factual determinations to be decided by a trier of fact. The appropriate procedure is to instruct the jury to find the status of JB before determining whether a duty, if any, was owed by JB to the Messers." View "Messer v. B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including Jack and Nancy Cooper, filed suit against Takeda, manufacturers of the prescription drug Actos, which is used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Coopers appealed the trial court's grant of Takeda's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and Takeda's alternative motion for new trial on the grounds that without the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Smith, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the trial court should not have instructed the jury regarding concurrent causation. The court concluded that the trial court erred in striking the expert’s testimony. The court concluded that, by requiring that the expert rule out all other possible causes for Jack Cooper’s bladder cancer, even where there was no substantial evidence that other such causes might be relevant, the trial court exceeded the proper boundaries of its gatekeeping function in determining the admissibility of the complex scientific testimony. The court also concluded that the evidence supported giving a jury instruction on multiple causation. Accordingly, The court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the order granting a new trial, as well as the subsequent judgment entered in favor of Takeda, and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to enter a new judgment based on the jury’s verdict. View "Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals" on Justia Law

After Secundino Medino died of asbestos-related mesothelioma, Medina's estate and his family filed suit against several defendants, including BWMT, alleging claims for negligence, strict liability, and wrongful death. The court affirmed the district court's grant of nonsuit to Eli, Medina's great-grandson, and rejected Eli's contention that substantial evidence showed that he was dependent on Medina for one-half or more of his support, thereby conferring upon him standing to assert wrongful death claims. The court affirmed the noneconomic damages awarded to Medina's daughters because the court concluded that they were amply supported by the record and were not the product of passion or improper evidence. However, the court reversed as to the punitive damages because plaintiffs' limited evidence of BWMT's financial condition was not sufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages. Finally, the court affirmed the jury's allocation of fault. View "Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC" on Justia Law

Robinson worked as a sandblaster for decades. Sand sometimes breaks down into silica dust, which, if inhaled, can cause the incurable lung disease silicosis. By 1997, Robinson knew that sandblasting could cause silicosis. In 1998, he saw Dr. Ragland, after coughing up white mucus. In 2002, he went to Ragland for bronchitis. In 2007, Robinson went to an emergency room for chest pain. The report listed three possibilities: tuberculosis, sarcoidosis, or a pneumonoconiosis disease (e.g., silicosis) caused by inhaling dusts. Medical notes reflect an “impression” of “silicosis related to sandblasting.” Robinson saw a respiratory specialist, to “follow up his silicosis.” Ridgeway’s notes, shared with Ragland, list an “impression” of silicosis. In 2011 Ridgeway biopsied Robinson’s lung. According to Robinson, Ridgeway then first told him he had silicosis. In 2012, Robinson sued entities that “sold, designed, manufactured, or marketed . . . silica related products.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed that the suit was time-barred. Arkansas’s three-year limitations period for product-liability actions applied, subject to a discovery rule: the period “does not commence running until the plaintiff knew or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the causal connection between the product and the injuries suffered.” Robinson should have known in 2007 that silica-related products had damaged his lungs. View "Robinson v. Mine Safety Appliances Co." on Justia Law

Robinson worked as a sandblaster for decades. Sand sometimes breaks down into silica dust, which, if inhaled, can cause the incurable lung disease silicosis. By 1997, Robinson knew that sandblasting could cause silicosis. In 1998, he saw Dr. Ragland, after coughing up white mucus. In 2002, he went to Ragland for bronchitis. In 2007, Robinson went to an emergency room for chest pain. The report listed three possibilities: tuberculosis, sarcoidosis, or a pneumonoconiosis disease (e.g., silicosis) caused by inhaling dusts. Medical notes reflect an “impression” of “silicosis related to sandblasting.” Robinson saw a respiratory specialist, to “follow up his silicosis.” Ridgeway’s notes, shared with Ragland, list an “impression” of silicosis. In 2011 Ridgeway biopsied Robinson’s lung. According to Robinson, Ridgeway then first told him he had silicosis. In 2012, Robinson sued entities that “sold, designed, manufactured, or marketed . . . silica related products.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed that the suit was time-barred. Arkansas’s three-year limitations period for product-liability actions applied, subject to a discovery rule: the period “does not commence running until the plaintiff knew or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the causal connection between the product and the injuries suffered.” Robinson should have known in 2007 that silica-related products had damaged his lungs. View "Robinson v. Mine Safety Appliances Co." on Justia Law

GE manufactures Omniscan, an FDA-approved gadolinium-based contrast agent that has been associated in some patients with development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), a rare and deadly condition that leads to the hardening (fibrosis) of the kidneys. Omniscan was administered to Wahl for two MRIs she received in Nashville in 2006. About one year later, she displayed the first symptoms of NSF. She was officially diagnosed with NSF in 2010. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all pre-trial litigation of Omniscan-related cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In 2011, Wahl filed a complaint in that court. With the agreement of Wahl and GE, the MDL judge transferred the case, in 2013, to the Middle District of Tennessee, the “proper venue.” GE then moved for summary judgment, arguing that all Omniscan doses produced from 2004 to 2006 were marked with expiration dates two years after manufacture, so the Omniscan administered to Wahl must have expired no later than 2008; the Tennessee Products Liability Act’s statute of repose requires suits to be instituted within one year of the expiration date appearing on a product’s packaging. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, favoring GE, applying Tennessee choice-of-law rules. View "Wahl v. Gen. Elec. Co." on Justia Law

The decedent in this case fell from a ladder, resulting in his death. Plaintiff sued the companies that manufactured and sold the ladder, alleging that Defendants were liable on the basis of strict liability and under negligence theories. The jury rendered a verdict finding Defendants liable. Neither party objected to the verdict. After the jury was discharged, Defendants moved to set aside the verdict, contending that the jury verdict was fundamentally inconsistent. The trial court denied the motion. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the “fundamental nature” exception to the general rule that Defendants waived their challenges to the inconsistent verdict for failing to timely object applied in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a party must timely object to an inconsistent verdict under these circumstances or the issue is waived; and (2) because Defendants failed to timely raise their objection to the jury’s inconsistent verdict, the trial court did not err in denying Defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict. View "Coba v. Tricam Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose out of a warehouse fire in Pasadena, Texas. Plaintiffs, the company that leased the warehouse and the company that stored materials in the warehouse, sued Defendants, the suppliers of the chlorpyrifos that the lessee used in the warehouse, for manufacturing and marketing defect, breach of contract, negligence, and other causes of action. The jury found that the chlorpyrifos was defective and that Defendants breached the parties’ contract. After the trial court entered judgment for Plaintiffs, Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that the testimony of all four of Plaintiffs’ experts was unreliable and constituted no evidence of negligence, manufacturing defect, and causation. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that each expert’s individual testimony was reliable, and therefore, the experts’ collective testimony was reliable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the testimony of all four experts was unreliable; and (2) consequently, there was no evidence of an essential element of Plaintiffs’ claims. View "Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

A fire occurred at the Ralph Engelstad Arena on July 3, 2011. Arena Holdings alleges the fire started when a Crown Macro-Tech 5002VZ amplifier produced a direct current to a speaker that spread to adjoining speakers located in the catwalk area. Harman is the manufacturer of the alleged defective amplifier. Impulse Group installed the sound reinforcement system at the Arena when it was originally built, and installed the amplifier. The fire caused approximately $5,000,000 of damage throughout the Arena; it directly damaged the arena structure and equipment in the vicinity of the amplifier and speakers. The presence of smoke and soot throughout the Arena after the fire caused additional damage. Arena Holdings sued Harman, alleging negligence, strict liability and post-sale failure-to warn claims. Harman filed a third-party complaint against Impulse Group and others. The district court granted Harman summary judgment, finding that the economic loss doctrine precluded Arena Holdings from recovering tort damages. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, acknowledging that barring tort claims where a plaintiff seeks economic damages for foreseeable losses for which the plaintiff could have contractually allocated risk is admittedly no longer a "modern trend," but stating that it is neither is an antiquated or disfavored approach. View "Arena Holdings Charitable, LLC v. Harman Prof'l, Inc." on Justia Law