Justia Products Liability Opinion Summaries

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

The Piltches were traveling in their 2003 Mercury Mountaineer in February 2007 when they hit a patch of black ice, causing the car to slide off the road and into a wall. Upon impact, none of the car’s air bags deployed and both were injured. They filed suit in 2010, alleging the vehicle was defective under Indiana law. The district court granted Ford’s summary judgment motion holding that, without expert testimony, the Piltches could not create an issue of fact as to proximate cause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Piltches stated a claim for relief under the Indiana Products Liability Act; there is sufficient circumstantial evidence of a defective product that expert testimony is not required; they are not required to produce expert testimony to establish proximate cause; and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, raising an inference of negligence on the part of Ford. The Piltches’ presentation of circumstantial evidence was not “one of the ‘rare instances’ where it is enough to negate all possible causes other than a product defect.” View "Piltch v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Velasquez worked at a company that made food flavorings, moving diacetyl, in closed and open containers. He breathed ambient diacetyl particles while mixing liquid and dry flavorings. Material safety data sheets attached to the containers warned that diacetyl was “harmful by inhalation,” but, consistent with industry practices at the time, did not warn of specific risks. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health did not issue exposure limits until years later. During a 2005 incident, Velasquez inhaled fumes from a concentration that included acetaldehyde, but not diacetyl. He experienced trouble breathing and sought medical attention. Velasquez returned to the hospital twice in the next two months. In 2005, Velasquez’s supervisor took him to a clinic where a “company doctor” told him he could not continue working for the company in his condition. In 2006 Velasquez was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare lung disease which is usually progressive and fatal. He filed suit. After finding the issue relevant to Velasquez’s ability to receive a lung transplant, the judge advised prospective jurors that Velasquez is an undocumented immigrant. The court entered judgment on the jury’s special verdict, including findings that the supplier’s acts were not a substantial factor in causing Velasquez’s harm. The court of appeal reversed, based on the error in disclosing Velasquez’s status to jurors. View "Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against I-Flow, manufacturer of the PainBuster continuous infusion pump, alleging state common law claims for negligence and strict products liability. Plaintiff alleged that I-Flow negligently failed to warn that its pain pump should not be used in intra-articular spaces such as the glenohumeral joint; and that I-Flow was strictly liable for selling a product that was unreasonably dangerous due to the lack of adequate warnings. The PainBuster is regulated under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) to the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(A)(i), (B), (C)(i). Concluding that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal where judgment was entered as to all defendants, the court concluded that the requested jury instructions regarding negligence and federal standards were not preempted by the MDA. Therefore, the court remanded and declined to reach the evidentiary issues. The court dismissed I-Flow's cross appeal as moot. View "McClellan v. I-Flow Corp." on Justia Law

In 2007, plaintiff was severely injured when a 2000 Dodge Neon that she was driving was struck from behind by another vehicle. In July 2010, she filed a personal-injury action against Midstate, the automobile dealer that sold her the vehicle; Chrysler Group LLC, successor-in-interest to Chrysler Corporation, which manufactured the vehicle but later declared bankruptcy; JCI, which manufactured the vehicle's driver's seat; and Autoliv ASP, Inc., which manufactured the vehicle's seatbelts. In September 2012, plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with Midstate and Chrysler Group. Based on the settlement agreement, the trial court issued an order of dismissal with prejudice in favor of Midstate and Chrysler Group. A jury trial in June 2013 on plaintiff's remaining action against JCI resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff on the products-liability claim. The trial court also entered a final judgment in favor of JCI and against Midstate on the cross-claim for indemnity. Midstate appealed that judgment. The issue primarily briefed by the parties on appeal was whether an indemnitee invoking common law equitable indemnity must extinguish the liability of the indemnitor to collect indemnity. The Supreme Court found no basis to distrub the judgment in favor of JCI, and affirmed. View "Heco v. Foster Motors" on Justia Law

After plaintiff's daughter developed a condition known as dental fluorisis, plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturers of bottled water, infant formula, and baby food that her daughter consumed. At issue was whether federal law, which provides uniform labeling standards for the products at issue, preempts plaintiff's state-law claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action, holding that federal law preempts plaintiff's bottled water claims and that her complaint as to the infant formula and baby food products fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). View "Nemphos v. Nestle Waters North America" on Justia Law

Zachary Gage Duncan sustained a serious injury while driving his 2008 Hyundai Tiburon when he struck a tree. The side airbag did not deploy. Plaintiffs, individual and as Duncan’s guardians and conservators, filed suit against Hyundai, claiming breach of implied warranty of merchantability. During trial, Plaintiffs’ designated expert witness Geoffrey Mahon testified that the location of the side airbag sensor rendered the Tiburon unreasonably dangerous. Hyundai appealed from the judgment of the trial court, arguing that there was an insufficient foundation for the expert witness’s opinion. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) Mahon’s opinion was premised upon his unfounded assumption that the side airbag would have deployed if the sensor had been located in a different area; and (2) because Mahon’s opinion supplied the only support for Plaintiffs’ claim that the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous, the inadmissibility of Mahon’s opinion was fatal to Plaintiffs’ claim. View "Hyundai Motor Co. v. Duncan" on Justia Law