Justia Products Liability Opinion Summaries

Nineteen unrelated mothers brought in the Circuit Court of Wayne County claims against Pfizer, Inc. and related entities (collectively, Respondents) on behalf of their respective minor children, alleging that their ingestion of Zoloft during their pregnancies caused their children to suffer birth defects. Petitioners hailed from fifteen different states. Respondents moved to refer the litigation to the Mass Litigation Panel. After the motion was denied, a virtually identical complaint was filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court by six unrelated plaintiff families against Respondents. The circuit court consolidated the two civil actions. The twenty-five plaintiff families then moved to refer the litigation to the Panel. The chief justice transferred the two civil actions to the Panel. Respondents filed a motion seeking to dismiss twenty-two non-resident plaintiff families on the basis of forum non conveniens. The Panel granted, in part, the motion to dismiss and dismissed twenty of the twenty-two plaintiff families. Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the Panel’s dismissal order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that there was no basis to prevent the Panel from enforcing its dismissal order. View "State ex rel. J.C. v. Hon. James P. Mazzone" on Justia Law

Jack Garrett Ford, Inc. sold a Ford Expedition to an unidentified individual from a dealership located in West Virginia. The vehicle was manufactured and designed in Michigan by Ford Motor Company, which had its principal place of business in Michigan. The Expedition was later sold to a Michigan resident, who in turn sold it to Plaintiffs, also Michigan residents. After the Expedition rolled over multiple times, resulting in two children being killed, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in a West Virginia state court, asserting claims against Jack Garrett Ford and Ford. Defendants moved to dismiss the civil action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Michigan was the correct forum for the litigation. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. Defendants then filed this petition for writ of prohibition asserting that the circuit court erred in its decision. The Supreme Court granted the writ as moulded, holding that the circuit court failed properly to evaluate Petitioners’ motion to dismiss in a manner that comported with W. Va. Code 56-1-1a. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Hon. David W. Nibert" on Justia Law

In 1996, a Florida District Court of Appeal approved certification of a class-action lawsuit originating in the Circuit Court of Dade County that encompassed an estimated 700,000 Floridians who brought state-law damages claims against the major American tobacco companies for medical conditions, including cancer, "caused by their addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine." The Florida Supreme Court then decertified the class but held that the jury findings would nonetheless have "res judicata effect" in cases thereafter brought against one or more of the tobacco companies by a former class member. Here, a member of that now-decertified class, successfully advanced strict-liability and negligence claims that trace their roots to the pre-decertified class' jury findings. Over the defendants' objection, the District Court instructed the jury that "you must apply certain findings made by the [class action] court and they must carry the same weight they would have if you had listened to all the evidence and made those findings yourselves." When the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on both claims, the defendants renewed their motion for a judgment as a matter of law, contending, among other things, that federal law preempted the jury’s imposition of tort liability as based on the class-action jury findings. The District Court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed: "the State of Florida may ordinarily enforce duties on cigarette manufacturers in a bid to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. But it may not enforce a duty, as it has through the [class-action] jury findings, premised on the theory that all cigarettes are inherently defective and that every cigarette sale is an inherently negligent act. So our holding is narrow indeed: it is only these specific, sweeping bases for state tort liability that we conclude frustrate the full purposes and objectives of Congress. As a result, [plaintiff's class-action]-progeny strict-liability and negligence claims are preempted, and we must reverse the District Court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law." View "Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner Hyundai Motor Company petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to stay a scheduled judgment debtor examination of its president and chief executive officer over a dispute regarding an attempt by real-party-in-interest to collect supposed postjudgment interest of $462.50 on an attorney fee award of $42,203. Hyundai promptly paid the entire fee award, but refused to pay any additional sums for interest. Rosen accepted the tendered amount but deducted $462.50 as an interest payment, allegedly leaving part of the principal balance unpaid. From this initial $462.50, Rosen claimed that Hyundai owed more than $13,000 for additional interest and attorney fees in less than a six-month period, "one of the best growth investments we have seen." The Court of Appeal granted Hyundai's request: "[t]here is a short answer to Rosen’s claim for postjudgment interest: the attorney fee order was filed months before the entry of the final judgment in this matter. By law, postjudgment interest accrues in lemon-law cases at the time the final judgment is entered. When respondent court filed and entered its final judgment on November 21, 2014, Rosen’s attorney fee award had long been paid. As a result, Rosen is not entitled to postjudgment interest of $462.50, or in any amount." View "Hyundai Motor America v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Jim Book, the owner of an auto repair shop in Iowa, bought from an Iowa retailer four Treadstone tires manufactured in China by Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Company, Ltd. Jim’s son, Dylan Book, was airing up one of the tires when it exploded, causing severe and permanent injuries. Dylan, through his mother, filed a products-liability action in Iowa seeking recovery from Doublestar and Voma Tire Corporation, a national tire distributor that sold several of Doublestar’s tires. Doublestar moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Constitution permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a high-volume, foreign manufacturer, such as Doublestar, whose allegedly dangerous product purchased in Iowa injured a resident here. View "Book v. Voma Tire Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Windsor Food Quality Company, Ltd. manufactured Jose Ole frozen food products, using ground beef supplied by Westland/Hallmark Meat Company. In 2008, after a voluntary United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recall of Westland beef, Windsor made a claim under its Contamination Products Insurance policy issued by defendants-respondents QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited and Underwriters of Lloyds, London. After Lloyds denied coverage on various grounds, Windsor sued for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court granted Lloyds's summary judgment motion, finding no triable issues of material fact and no coverage. Windsor appealed. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that Windsor could not claim coverage for the recall of Westland's ground beef. The Court agreed with the trial court there were no disputed material facts and no bad faith by Lloyds. View "Windsor Food Quality v. Underwriters of Lloyds etc." on Justia Law

The decedents in this case were long distance drivers for Werner Enterprises. When the tractor-trailer they were driving as a team hit a guardrail and overturned, the tractor-trailer caught on fire, killing the decedents. Werner later disposed of the remains of the tractor-trailer. Plaintiffs, the family of the decedents, filed this lawsuit asserting, among other claims, product liability claims against the manufacturer of the tractor-trailer, Freightliner Corporation, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged alleged that Werner had either negligently or intentionally spoliated evidence, including the tractor-trailer. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Werner, thus dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims except the claim concerning whether Werner intentionally spoliated evidence when it disposed of the tractor-trailer. The circuit court eventually entered summary judgment on this claim, concluding that there was no question of material fact as to whether Werner had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ potential civil action when it disposed of the tractor-trailer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was correct in granting summary judgment. View "Williams v. Werner Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Nearly two years after he stopped using CIBA contact lenses, Kallal sued the company, claiming that a defect had hurt his eyes. CIBA itself had spotted a problem of poor permeability with some of its lenses and had issued a major recall. CIBA claimed that Kallal never used the recalled lenses. Noting that Kallal’s proof of defect relied entirely on the recall, and that the evidence showed that Kallal himself never purchased any of the recalled lenses, the district court granted judgment for CIBA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Once CIBA demonstrated that the lenses that it manufactured and Kallal used were not subject to the recall, the company was entitled to summary judgment View "Kallal v. CIBA Vision Corp." on Justia Law

In 1988 Sutherland received breast implants in North Carolina. She filed suit in North Carolina five years later, after learning that the silicone in her implants could be causing a variety of serious medical problems. The Silicone’s manufacturer, Dow Corning, filed for bankruptcy in Michigan, and Sutherland’s suit was transferred there. In 2012, 24 years after Sutherland received the implants, the district court concluded that Sutherland’s claim was barred by Michigan’s statute of limitations and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the district court should have applied North Carolina’s law instead of Michigan’s, and should have concluded that there was a genuine factual issue as to whether Sutherland’s claim was timely-filed under North Carolina law. View "Sutherland v. DCC Litig. Facility, Inc." on Justia Law

Grebing was injured while exercising at a 24 Hour Fitness facility in La Mirada. The trial court granted 24 Hour summary judgment, holding that Grebing had signed a valid release of liability and 24 Hour did not act with gross negligence. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the release cannot relieve 24 Hour of liability for gross negligence, and that there was a triable issue of fact whether 24 Hour was grossly negligent; that the release does not relieve 24 Hour of liability for its own negligence; and that 24 Hour was in the chain of distribution for the rowing machine on which Grebing was injured and could be liable based on products liability. View "Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc." on Justia Law