Justia Products Liability Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against Bard, manufacturer and seller of polypropylene mesh kits, for personal injuries, and plaintiff's husband sought damages for loss of consortium. A jury found Bard was negligent and awarded $5.5 million in damages. The jury also found that plaintiff's surgeon, a nonparty, was 40 percent at fault and the trial court reduced the award accordingly. The court concluded that the jury was properly instructed on the theory of negligent design, negligent training, and negligent misrepresentation; substantial evidence supported the negligence verdict; and Bard was not denied a fair trial. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that it was necessary to instruct the jury on medical professional negligence to support the apportionment and, because the jury was not so instructed, the trial court erred in reducing the damages. Plaintiffs acquiesced in the giving of incomplete jury instructions on the surgeon's fault when it was in their best interest for the jury to be properly instructed on that issue. Consequently, plaintiffs are estopped from asserting this instructional error on appeal. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Scott v. C.R. Bard, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against City Brewing after his college-age son was shot to death by police after drinking two 23.5 cans of Four Loko. Plaintiff alleged that City Brewing, the company that brewed, bottled, and labeled Four Loko, was negligent and strictly liable for his son's death. The trial court granted City Brewing's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court concluded that City Brewing did not "furnish" the beverage to the son and, therefore, the civil immunity in California's dram shop statutes did not extend to City Brewing; judgment on the pleadings cannot be upheld based on the statutory immunity that bars product liability claims for certain inherently unsafe common consumer products, Civ. Code 1714.45, subd. (a); the allegations about the interactive effect of Four Loko's ingredients preclude the court from finding, as a matter of law, that Four Loko's combination of alcohol and stimulants constitutes a "common consumer product" within the meaning of section 1714.45, subdivision (a)(2); and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fiorini v. City Brewing Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Titeflex Corporation, the manufacturer of Gastite, for an alleged product defect in Gastite corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST). The complaint asserted four causes of action, each based on allegations of Gastite CSST’s vulnerability to lightning strikes. The District Court of Massachusetts dismissed for lack of standing, concluding that Plaintiff’s injury was too speculative. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to allege either facts sufficient to assess the likelihood of future injury or instances of actual damage where it was clear that CSST was the source, and therefore, the alleged risk of harm was too speculative to give rise to a case or controversy. View "Kerin v. Titeflex Corp." on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. and BRP US Inc. (collectively BRP) appealed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Haley Colombo and Jessica Slagel. Because plaintiffs were not wearing a wetsuit bottom or similar protective clothing, Haley sustained serious and permanent injury to her rectum and Jessica to her vagina when, because of operator negligence, they fell off the back of a three-passenger watercraft manufactured by BRP, model GFI 4-TEC. Once in the water, Haley and Jessica were both injured when the powerful jet thrust from the watercraft ripped their flesh. The jury found the owner of the personal watercraft (PWC), Robert Adamson dba Mission Bay Jet Sports (collectively Adamson), its operator and store employee, Brett Kohl, and BRP each one-third liable. The jury also awarded punitive damages against BRP, finding its conduct manifested a reckless or callous disregard for plaintiffs' rights and safety. On appeal, BRP argued the evidence in the record was insufficient to support the jury's causation and punitive damages findings, made under federal maritime common law. In the alternative, it contended the trial court erred when it refused, under the same law, to reduce the amount of punitive damages awarded each plaintiff to equal their respective compensatory damages awards; admitted evidence that, at the time of plaintiffs' accident, BRP had notice of previous claims of orifice injuries to passengers but excluded evidence proffered by BRP to show the causes of the previous claims allegedly were not substantially similar to plaintiffs' accident; and made a series of other rulings that BRP alleges amounted to a denial of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal rejected each of these contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "Colombo v. BRP US, Inc." on Justia Law

Following a jury verdict awarding compensatory damages to plaintiff, Reynolds appealed the final judgment. Plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages based on the loss of support and services, loss of companionship and protection, and her mental pain and suffering, as a result of her husband's lung cancer and death, the legal cause of which was attributed to his addiction to smoking cigarettes manufactured by Reynolds. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the deceased's alcohol abuse as it related to his death under Rule 403 where the evidence was highly probative and did not cause a high amount of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." on Justia Law

Gottschall sued 18 defendants for allegedly causing him to develop an “asbestos-related disease” because of the products those defendants produced, and to which he was exposed by his work from 1957 to 1989 in shipyards and similar facilities. Gottschall died. His heirs filed an amended state court complaint against 17 of the defendants, including Crane, and filed a wrongful death and survival action in federal court against six defendants that had not been named in state court. The federal court granted General Dynamics summary judgment; it had been sued because it had supplied the U.S. Navy vessels with asbestos-containing materials. The court held that under California law the Navy was a “sophisticated user” of asbestos-containing material that had knowledge of asbestos hazards at the time of the alleged exposure. Crane moved for summary judgment in state court. Relying on the federal court’s decision, Crane contended that it, too, had supplied asbestos-containing products to the Navy, and that the heirs were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue. The superior court granted Crane summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the federal court’s resolution of the issue was wrong under California law, so that collateral estoppel does not apply. View "Gottschall v. Crane Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Heinkel and Pepperl in Iowa state court, seeking damages based on a products-liability theory. On appeal, Heinkel and Pepperl challenged the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice and the district court's failure to condition the dismissal on the payment of fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice where the grant of voluntary dismissal did not result in a waste of judicial time and effort because the case had not progressed very far. Further, in these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the voluntary dismissal without awarding fees and costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mullen v. Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who operated a nail salon, used a liquid acrylic nail product repackaged and distributed by Premium Nail Concepts, Inc. (PNC). After Plaintiff was diagnosed with a sensitization to ethyl methacrylate, a chemical ingredient contained in the PNC nail product Plaintiff used, Plaintiff filed a products liability claim against PNC. The jury ruled in favor of PNC, determining that PNC’s nail product was not in a defective condition because of a manufacturing defect, design defect, or inadequate warning. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in (1) allowing PNC to present expert testimony that its product was “safe as used” when skin contact is avoided; (2) denying Plaintiff the right to cross-examine the expert witness who proffered this evidence; (3) instructing the jury on the meaning of “safe as used”; and (4) refusing to instruct the jury that skin contact with the PNC product is common in the nail industry. View "Kenser v. Premium Nail Concepts, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, in connection with a magnetic resonance imaging procedure (MRI), Decker received a dose of Omniscan, a gadoliniumbased contrast agent manufactured by GEHC. After taking Omniscan, Decker developed Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF). In 2012, the Deckers sued GEHC, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Before the Deckers’ case, hundreds of similar cases in the MDL involving GEHC had been settled. The Decker case was the first case in the MDL to go to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Deckers on a failure-to-warn claim, awarding $5 million in damages. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the district court judge should have recused himself from the trial and a motion for a new trial; made several erroneous evidentiary rulings, which were applicable to all MDL cases; erroneously denied GEHC’s motion for a new trial because insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict regarding the causation element of the Deckers’ failure-to-warn claim; and erroneously failed to issue two proposed jury instructions. View "Decker v. GE Healthcare Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, four years after appellants Ramona Christensen and Jack Scott purchased a new car, it collided with two moose on the Parks Highway. After the collision Christensen called the police to report the accident and called Scott to come pick her up at the scene. When Scott arrived Christensen said she felt nauseated, and Scott noticed a red mark on her forehead. Christensen could not remember many details of the collision, including whether she hit her head on something inside the car. During the days following the accident, Christensen reported feeling light-headed and dizzy. Christensen’s speech became disfluent and broken, and her gait became unsteady, causing her to fall repeatedly. About one week after the accident, Christensen sought medical attention to address her worsening symptoms. A neurologist examined Christensen and ordered an MRI spectroscopy. The spectroscopy showed evidence of bilateral frontal lobe brain damage. Since 2008 numerous other physicians and psychiatrists have examined and treated Christensen for her continuing speech, short-term memory, and mobility problems. The couple sued the car dealership for product liability, alleging that the car’s seat belt failed to restrain the driver in the accident. The superior court granted summary judgment to the dealership, concluding that "no reasonable jury could find that the Plaintiffs have proven that the seat belt . . . was defective." The couple appealed, arguing that the superior court applied an incorrect summary judgment standard and that genuine issues of material fact made summary judgment inappropriate. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the couple raised genuine issues of material fact regarding a seat belt defect and causation of the driver’s injury, it reversed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Christensen v. Alaska Sales & Service, Inc." on Justia Law