Products Liability

Product Liability Appeal against Food Manufacturer Dismissed for Failure to Preserve Alleged Error

March 23, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a personal injury plaintiff’s appeal was thrown out for failing to object to the error he alleged occurred at trial. The court in Stults v. International Flavors held that the plaintiff’s failure to object to the curative jury instruction given by the trial judge in response to objectionable testimony by an expert prevented him from raising that issue on appeal. This case illustrates the importance of retaining an attentive and knowledgeable team of attorneys.

The Facts of the Case

This case arose after the plaintiff developed a lung disease. He claimed that he developed the disease because he consumed microwavable popcorn manufactured by the defendant every day for 20 years. He also submitted evidence that showed the chemical used to give the popcorn its buttery flavor can cause the very lung disease he was diagnosed with when people are exposed in high doses.

At trial, both plaintiff and defendant had expert witnesses testify to the cause of plaintiff’s lung disease. At some point in the trial, a defense expert made an improper comment on the evidence and the plaintiff objected. The court sustained the plaintiff’s objection and the jury was told to disregard the defense expert’s testimony on that issue. After the trial, the jury determined that the plaintiff did not prove his case.

Plaintiff’s Product Liability Case Against Rifle Manufacturer Revived on Appeal

March 2, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower state court decision, allowing the plaintiff in a product liability lawsuit to proceed toward trial despite the defendant’s challenges to the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony. In the case, Seamon v. Remington Arms Company, the plaintiff was the wife of a man who had died while hunting alone with his Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s husband left to go hunting by himself back in November 2011. He had an elevated stand up in the trees from which he would hunt. However, after several hours of failing to return text messages from his family, they called police. Police found the man dead in the elevated tree stand, with his rifle 13 feet below. There was a rope attached to the rifle’s scope, the safety was off, and there was a spent shell in the chamber. There was no gunshot residue on the man, leading investigators to believe he was at least five to 10 feet away when the gun fired. No one witnessed the shooting.

The man’s wife filed a product liability case against the manufacturer of the rifle, claiming that her husband died as a result of a defect in the gun. The plaintiff had an expert testify that, in his experience, the trigger mechanism in the Model 700 rifle was subject to sporadic firing. He testified that in cases of sporadic firing, there are usually some deposits in the fire control housing of the gun. He further testified that upon examination, the gun the plaintiff’s husband was using had deposits in the fire control housing. This led the expert to believe that the gun may have accidentally fired without having the trigger pulled.

Lessor of Crane Involved in Serious Accident Found Not Liable for Plaintiff’s Injuries

February 16, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, one state’s supreme court heard a case brought by a man who was injured by a crane when an intermittent malfunction caused the crane to shift forward, crushing the man’s foot. In the case, Carson v. ALL Erection & Crane Rental Corporation, the court determined that, while the lessor did have a duty to inspect the equipment prior to leasing it to the plaintiff’s employer, that duty did not require an inspection so exhaustive as to discover the difficult-to-discover defect.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the “eyes and ears” for a fellow employee who was the designated crane operator. The plaintiff and the crane operator were instructed to move the crane a few miles from its current location. Along the way, the two encountered a section of road with overhead wires, and precautions were taken in crossing the road. However, as the crane was taken out of drive, it shifted forward, causing wood planks underneath where the plaintiff was standing to rise unexpectedly. The plaintiff slid down the wooden planks and under the crane, where his foot was crushed. It was later amputated.

After the accident, the crane was inspected by both ALL Erection, the defendant lessor, as well as the plaintiff’s employer. Ultimately, the crane was repaired. It was determined that the cause of the crane’s unexpected shift was “a failure of the solid‐state electrical circuitry.” However, it was not until a very thorough examination that the error was found.

Dangerous Products and Product Liability Lawsuits

January 12, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Manufacturers, regardless of the products they make, are required to ensure that the goods they release into the stream of commerce are safe for normal use or consumption. When a product causes an injury or death, the manufacturer may be liable to those injured as a result of their product. In some cases, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers of a dangerous product may also be held liable. These lawsuits are called product liability lawsuits.

Product liability lawsuits break down into three categories: negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. Negligence claims rely on the fact that the manufacturer was somehow negligent in the design or production of the item. These claims also include a manufacturer’s failure to warn about the dangerous propensities of a product.

Breach of warranty claims arise when there is an express or implied warranty that a product is safe for a certain kind of use, and that turns out not to be the case. These cases are brought under a breach-of-contract theory because the plaintiff is alleging that the manufacturer failed to “live up to their end of the deal.”

Maryland Court Broadens Applicability of “Strict Liability” and “Failure to Warn” Theories Pertaining to Equipment Containing Asbestos

January 5, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided a case that may have a significant impact for anyone who had contact with equipment containing asbestos and has subsequently been diagnosed with a serious illness. In the case, May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, the court allowed the plaintiff’s case to proceed against the defendant manufacturer even though the asbestos-containing part causing the plaintiff’s injuries was not manufactured by the defendant.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case is the widow of a man who served in the Navy between the years of 1956 and 1976. During her husband’s tenure in the Navy, he was a machinist who worked on pumps that were manufactured by the defendant. At some point after his service, the plaintiff’s husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma that was a result of his coming into contact with asbestos that was contained in the gaskets of the pump.

The gaskets, however, were replacement parts and were not manufactured by the defendant, but by a third party not present in this lawsuit. The man’s wife filed a lawsuit based on the legal theories of strict products liability and failure to warn. It was not contested that the pump’s manual made no mention of the dangers of asbestos.

Seven Product Recalls Announced in the Past Few Weeks; Some with Potentially Serious Safety Concerns

November 10, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a national news source compiled a list of several recent product recalls that major manufacturers across the country have announced. According to that article, the following items have all been recalled:

Skippy Reduced Fat Peanut Butter: Skippy told consumers that there is the possibility that there could be small pieces of metal in the product.
Sure Signal Fire Alarms: There is a potential fuse problem in certain models, resulting in a failure to alert owners of a fire.
Sanofi Epinephrine Injections: There have been 26 reports that the company has administered the wrong dose to patients.
Burley Child Bicycle Trailers: Several models of the trailers have defective hardware that can cause the trailer to separate from the bicycle.
Dodge Journey Vehicles: There is a problem that can cause moisture build-up in the brake system, potentially leading to an increased risk of brake failure.
Jeep Cherokees: There is a reported problem in the AC line that can cause a vehicle to catch on fire.
Honda Accords: Roughly 304,000 Accords were recalled because the airbags may spontaneously deploy. So far, 19 injuries have been reported.
Pottery Barn Water Bottles: There are reports that the paint used in the water bottles contains lead.

Anyone who believes that they may be in possession of a defective product should consult with the manufacturer to determine if that is the case. If so, most manufacturers will return any money paid for the product or will repair it free of charge.

Manufacturer Settles Lawsuit over Defective Tire that Paralyzed One Man

November 3, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, Cooper Tire & Rubber settled a lawsuit that was brought in the aftermath of an accident that paralyzed one man. According to one news source covering the case, the settlement agreement was reached on the second day of the trial. However, the exact terms of the agreement have not yet been released.

Evidently, the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a minivan equipped with Cooper tires when the rear left tire blew, causing the minivan to overturn. The man, who was sitting in the rear of the minivan, was ejected from the vehicle. As a result of the accident, the man suffered serious injuries and was paralyzed.

The man filed suit against Cooper Tire & Rubber, alleging that the company manufactured a defective product that caused his injuries. Specifically, he claimed that Cooper failed to use belt-edge gum strips, which are known to reduce occurrences of tread separation. In fact, there was evidence before the court that suggested that Cooper knew of these problems as early as 1996, but it failed to do anything about them in this specific model. Additionally, other models of Cooper tires did have some safety mechanisms that the tires on the plaintiff’s vehicle did not. This, the plaintiff argued, showed that Cooper was aware of the potential defect.

Gun Manufacturer Named in Lawsuit Following Accidental Shooting Death; Defective Trigger to Blame

October 30, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an appeal that allowed a products liability case to proceed against a gun manufacturer, alleging that a faulty trigger mechanism led to an accidental shooting. In the case, O’Neal v. Remington, the plaintiff was a woman whose husband was killed in an accidental shooting when he and several friends were hunting.

According to the court’s written opinion, the accident took place back in 2008 and involved a Remington rifle that was originally made with a “Walker trigger” mechanism. The Walker trigger mechanism was used dating back to the 1970s, and since then it had come under criticism for causing the gun to fire when the safety is off but without the trigger being pulled. However, despite evidence that a problem with the mechanism existed, Remington determined not to recall the roughly 20,000 rifles made with the trigger.

On the day in question, the plaintiff’s husband was out hunting with friends. He allowed one of his hunting buddies to use his Remington rifle, and, when the group spotted a deer, the friend pulled out the borrowed rifle. However, as he did so, the rifle accidentally discharged, killing the gun’s owner. The deceased’s wife filed suit against Remington, as the manufacturer of the gun.

Man Sues Wal-Mart after Allegedly Faulty Boots Cause Serious Injury

September 23, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of New Mexico decided a case that was brought by a man who was injured when a pair of boots he purchased from Wal-Mart came apart at the sole and caused him to trip. The court ended up remanding the case back to the lower appellate court so that it could reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

According to court documents, the plaintiff bought a pair of work boots at Wal-Mart and shortly after the purchase tripped and fell when the sole of the boot started to come off. The man was seriously injured and received treatment for a back injury as a result.

A little over three years later, the man filed suit against Wal-Mart, claiming that the boots caused the fall and that the poor quality of the boots violated implied and express warranties.

Thirty-Four Million Cars Affected by Most Recent Takata Airbag Recall

May 22, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, Japan-based airbag manufacturer Takata announced the largest auto-part recall in United States history, affecting over 34 million automobiles. Takata is the second-largest airbag manufacturer in the world, behind only Autoliv, which is based in Sweden.

According to one news report by CNN, the airbag manufacturer announced the recall after it came to light that the company’s airbags were prone to sending shrapnel in drivers’ and passengers’ faces upon deployment. Evidently, there have been six deaths allegedly caused by the faulty airbags, and countless other injuries. Most of the incidents involve older vehicles. However, newer models are also included in the recall.

It is estimated that there are approximately 52 million vehicles worldwide that will need to have their airbags replaced. Both Takata and Autoliv are struggling to manufacture airbags as quickly as possible to fill the orders. Currently, Takata is producing about 500,000 airbags a month, but it plans to double that number by September of this year.