Product Liability Advocate

Product Liability Advocate

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Economic Loss Rule in Product Liability Lawsuits

The Economic Loss Rule is a doctrine of law that prohibits a product liability claim being brought against a manufacturer for a defective product that only destroys itself, without harm to other property or to a person. In those instances where the product fails but only damages itself and nothing else, the plaintiff’s only remedy is to sue for breach of contract against the manufacturer of the product. The plaintiff cannot seek recovery from the manufacturer under product liability causes of action. The Economic Loss Rule has historically served as the boundary between tort and contract law. Despite the fact it is part of the basic fabric that makes up tort law, it is still challenged by plaintiffs in product liability actions. Continue Reading

California Imposes Broad Liability in “Take-Home” Toxic Exposure Cases

CA Flag 1The Supreme Court of California has overturned prior case law and imposed broad new liability on “employers and premises owners” in “take-home” toxic exposure cases. In a lengthy opinion issued in the consolidated Kesner v. Superior Court  and Haver v. BNSF Railway Co. matters, the Court stated:

 

 

We hold that the duty of employers and premises owners to exercise ordinary care in their use of asbestos includes preventing exposure to asbestos carried by the bodies and clothing of on-site workers. Where it is reasonably foreseeable that workers, their clothing, or personal effects will act as vectors carrying asbestos from the premises to household members, employers have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent this means of transmission. This duty also applies to premises owners who use asbestos on their property, subject to any exceptions and affirmative defenses generally applicable to premises owners, such as the rules of contractor liability.

Analysis
The Court held that “an employer’s or property owner’s duty to prevent take-home exposure extends only to members of a worker’s household, i.e., persons who live with the worker and are thus foreseeable in close and sustained contact with the worker over a significant period of time.” Continue Reading

Government Contractor Defense May Apply to Commercially Available Products

Columns in the courtyard of the Palace of the Legion of Honor.

The California Court of Appeal has confirmed that the “government contractor” defense may apply to products made available to both the federal government and commercial markets, even where the defendant did not design or produce the product at issue.

Continue Reading

The Cannabis Industry: Burning Batteries, Tasty Treats and Budding Product Liability Litigation

513537480

Pot smokers are not the only ones lining up outside the local dispensaries; plaintiff personal injury attorneys are as well. Watching, lurking, waiting with dollar signs in their eyes for the chance to seek punitive damages, as many states allow damages beyond compensatory for intoxication-related injuries to others.

Using cannabis is not just a matter of rolling a joint or packing a bong anymore. Marijuana-related technology has evolved, resulting in multiple areas for the products liability legal community to watch. One of the most substantial areas of note is vaporizing. Vaporizing is generally considered to be the healthiest way to consume marijuana as the user is – supposedly – only inhaling the vapor of the THC, with some estimates saying the process eliminates as much of 95 percent of the smoke inhaled, which generally is easier on the lungs. The process involves heating the cannabinoids, often with mass-produced, pen-size batteries that boil the THC or CBD. Generally, the boiling point of CBD is 320°F – 356°F / 160°C -180°C. The boiling point of THC is 315°F / 157°C. However, these batteries have not been through extensive quality control and testing, and vaporizers come in all shapes and sizes – some can take up a whole coffee table while others look like a writing utensil.

Continue Reading

New York Appellate Courts Now Unified on Hague’s “Send versus Serve” Issue

New York’s appellate departments are now unified with respect to their interpretation of Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention). The issue of whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention permits service of process by mail to a foreign country in the absence of an objection from the state of destination has now been resolved in New York. The First Department in Mutual Benefits Offshore Fund v. Zeltser, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04344, earlier this year reversed itself and joined the state’s three other appellate departments in holding that service of process by mail under those circumstances was indeed permissible.

Background
For those unfamiliar with the workings of the Hague Service Convention, it is a multilateral international treaty first adopted in 1965 that allows for the service of process of legal documents from one signatory state to another without the use of more formal consular or diplomatic channels. The treaty sets up a simplified means for accomplishing service of process by requiring each signatory nation to designate a “Central Authority” to receive the documents and arrange for actual service on the targeted entity in a manner permitted under local law. Once service is completed, the Central Authority sends proof of service to the requesting party. The advantages of this system lie in its speed, its standardized forms and its relatively low costs as compared with the pre−Hague Convention methods in place to serve foreign entities. Seventy countries are now parties to the agreement. Continue Reading

CSST Found to Be Ordinary Building Material under Virginia’s Statute of Repose – For a Second Time

In a recent decision, the Circuit Court for Spotsylvania County, Virginia, found that OmegaFlex, a manufacturer of corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST), which is used in residential gas supply systems, was entitled to the protection of Virginia’s statute of repose in a product liability lawsuit. The decision is significant because it is the second decision secured on behalf of OmegaFlex in Virginia proving that CSST gas piping is not within the meaning of the “equipment and machinery” exception to Virginia’s statute of repose. OmegaFlex secured its first dismissal on this issue in 2013 when the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond dismissed a product liability action filed against OmegaFlex − more than five years after its product was installed. In both actions, the courts have held that CSST gas piping is afforded the protection of Virginia’s statute of repose, thereby limiting the product liability exposure of manufacturers of CSST gas piping within the state of Virginia. Continue Reading

Revisiting the Post-Sale Duty to Warn

A Czech warning sign for general dangers.

A federal district court judge in New York City’s Southern District, applying Virginia law, recently invoked the concept of a manufacturer’s “post-sale duty to warn” to hold an automobile company potentially liable for failing to warn about an alleged defect in a car that it technically did not even manufacture. The ruling came in the context of the General Motors Ignition Switch multidistrict litigation (14-MD-2543).

Manufacturer versus Post-bankruptcy Successor
The plaintiff’s compact car went off the road, but its airbags failed to deploy because of an alleged defect in the car’s ignition switch that caused the airbags to move to the “off” position. Judge Jesse Furman denied a motion for summary judgment brought by the “new” GM, the post-bankruptcy successor to the “old” GM (OGM), the car’s actual manufacturer, noting, for example, that “new GM” (NGM) had assumed OGM’s warranty obligations to its customers when NGM entered into the 2009 sales agreement with OGM. The Court further noted the contacts between the plaintiff and NGM under Virginia state law might indeed recognize a post-sale duty to warn about OGM’s allegedly defective ignition switches. Additionally, he stated, “there is evidence that new GM had ‘actual knowledge’ of the ignition switch defect when it acquired the assets of old GM.” Continue Reading

Lithium-Ion Batteries: Small Products, Big Exposures

493279659

They are everywhere: in your pocket, in your car, in your hands, in your lap and even “in your face.” Lithium-ion batteries are in nearly every product that has become a staple of modern life, such as smartphones, tablets/notebook computers, digital cameras and headphones. They are in our transportation systems – trains, planes and automobiles. They are involved in our hobbies and recreation, including radio-controlled vehicles, hoverboards and e-bikes. They also show up in some of our vices, such as vaping and smoking e-cigarettes. Though we typically view the batteries and the products they power as innocuous, if something goes wrong it can go catastrophically wrong.

Continue Reading

Using the Affordable Care Act in Defense of Catastrophic Personal Injury Cases

Courts across the country are beginning to consider the argument that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) serves as a vehicle to limit a plaintiff’s claim for future medical damages. Plaintiffs often use exaggerated life care plans with significant damage calculations to support their future medical damages in catastrophic injury cases. In general, life care plans do not fairly consider a plaintiff’s entitlement to health insurance coverage, and assume that the alleged future medical care expenses are to be paid out-of-pocket by the plaintiff. Continue Reading

The Impact of the Smart Home Revolution on Product Liability and Fire Cause Determinations

532174354

When the failure of a smart product leads to a fire, the challenge of how smart home applications should be evaluated and examined as a potential cause becomes a more complex undertaking than the failure of a similar but dumb product.
Continue Reading