7 results for 'cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"Product Liability" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Stewart finds the district court improperly denied the parents' motion to remand this product liability suit, dismissing Whole Foods. The new parents sued Whole Foods and the baby food manufacturer after their healthy son's behavioral skills regressed, with tests showing that he suffered from seizure disorder, epileptiform disorder, hypotonia, and mitochondrial dysfunction. The child was also diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder/major neurocognitive disorder, with some physicians diagnosing him with heavy metal poisoning. Several years after the diagnosis, the House Oversight and Reform Committee released a report showing that the manufacturer's foods contained elevated levels of toxic heavy metals. Being that Whole Foods' business model depends on its reputation and customers’ willingness to a pay a premium for products advertised as healthy and high quality, the district court erred in concluding it was improperly joined. Allegations in the parents' state-court complaint stated plausible claims against Whole Foods. Reversed in part. Vacated in part.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Stewart , Filed On: May 28, 2024, Case #: 23-40197, Categories: negligence, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Locke rules on a series of motions filed in a product liability lawsuit for injuries stemming from the use of a retractable dog leash product sold on Amazon and at Petco retail stores. A woman alleges her middle and ring fingers were amputated after the cord on a Flexi New Classic leash wrapped around her hand while she was walking her golden retriever. The court preserves her claims for negligence, design defect and failure to warn, and also finds it has personal jurisdiction over the claims against the product’s distributor. The court further grants limited discovery to allow the litigant to establish jurisdiction over the product’s manufacturer, which is based in Germany.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Locke, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv6608, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: negligence, product Liability, jurisdiction
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Huff denies a pharmaceutical company's motion to dismiss strict liability claims brought by two consumers who allege they have suffered "neuropsychiatric injuries" after ingesting Singulair, a drug prescribed for the treatment of asthma and allergic rhinitis. Although the consumer was prescribed the drug outside of California, he is a California resident, took the drug in California, and was treated for his alleged injuries in California. Furthermore, the consumer has alleged that the company engaged in direct-to-consumer advertising of Singulair in California, so he has sufficiently established jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Huff, Filed On: October 16, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv522, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: negligence, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Bradford finds that the trial court properly ruled in product liability and negligence claims related to steroid injections purchased from an out-of-state company because plaintiff failed to demonstrate local business defendants caused the injuries. However, a related ruling must be overturned because plaintiffs remain free to pursue medical malpractice claims against defendants. Affirmed in part.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bradford, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 22A-CT-909, Categories: negligence, product Liability, jurisdiction