86 results for 'cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"Product Liability"'.
J. Hill finds a lower court improperly granted summary judgment to Bass Pro on a consumer's product defect claims concerning the purchase of a Beretta APX 9mm pistol for self- protection, which was stored under the driver's seat of his vehicle with a user manual. Bass Pro argued that is was not liable when the consumer misused the firearm in close proximity to his football teammate, after boasting that he could disassemble the weapon in "2.2 seconds," which resulted in an accidental gun shot that left the teammate with a leg amputation. However, the consumer sufficiently showed that he did not commit a "volitional" act based on his belief that the weapon would not fire when he removed the magazine to disarm it. Reversed.
Court: Kansas Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hill, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 126314, Categories: negligence, product Liability
J. Huffaker grants, in part, the medical device maker’s motion to dismiss a product liability suit filed by a patient who claims that her Smart Port, implanted for the purpose of infusion therapy was defective. She alleges claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine as well as claims for negligence, breach of warranty and wantonness concerning the device’s catheter, which fractured near her heart. The patient’s claims have an articulated reasonable set of facts that could make the medical device maker’s liable for failure to warn. Therefore, the AEMLD, negligence and wantonness claims may proceed, and the patient concedes her warranty claim.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Huffaker, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv112, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Tort, negligence, product Liability
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. Birzer grants a patient's motion to leave to file an amended complaint concerning strict products liability claims against a pharmaceutical company. The patient, who suffers from alopecia after taking a breast cancer chemotherapy drug, sufficiently showed in court that the manufacturer created an "informational tear sheet" distributed to chemotherapy nursing staff, falsely claiming that hair loss was temporary.
Court: USDC Kansas, Judge: Birzer, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 6:23cv1228, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Health Care, negligence, product Liability
J. Maxa finds that the lower court improperly issued summary judgment in favor of Industrial Scientific Corporation (ISC) in a lawsuit brought by an independent contractor who suffered respiratory injuries after being exposed to chlorine dioxide at a paper mill. While summary judgment was properly issued to the owner of the mill for not having a special duty of care towards the contractor, the same cannot be said for ISC. It had safety monitors that failed to go off after the contractor was exposed to the dangerous levels of chlorine dioxide, and as a result, claims can continue against it under the product liability theory. Affirmed in part.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Maxa, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 58137-0-II, Categories: negligence, product Liability
J. Boulware denies the cardiovascular filter manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on a patient's allegations a blood clot filter was defective after she experienced a long period of complications. This resulted in the removal of the filter, but not a part that had embolized into her left lung. Though warranty breach counts are dismissed, the negligent misrepresentation claim only requires the manufacturer supplied warnings. The surgeon explained he read product warnings, noting if he had been aware of unincluded concerns, he would have selected an alternative device.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Boulware , Filed On: March 30, 2024, Case #: 2:19cv1883, NOS: Tort Product Liability - Real Property, Categories: negligence, product Liability, Medical Malpractice
J. Russell grants, in part, a manufacturer’s motion to dismiss this products liability, tort, and contract dispute brought by several solar companies. The solar companies request punitive damages and allege the manufacturer sold defective electric power safety cutoff devices, which overheated and failed in multiple projects, creating a high risk of fire and electrocution. The solar companies failed to allege they had a fiduciary or confidential relationship nor that the manufacturer mislead partial or fragmentary statements. Therefore, the fraudulent concealment is dismissed, and the manufacturer must answer the amended complaint. The court will deny the request punitive damages because the burden at this stage has been met on clear and convincing evidence.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Russell, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1606, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, negligence, product Liability
J. Dishman partially grants the defendant refrigerator manufacturer's motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this lawsuit stemming from a fire that allegedly began in a recreational vehicle. The owners of the RV contend that the fire was caused by a defective refrigerator, which was inside the RV, and the court finds that their expert's opinions are "generally relevant and helpful." However, certain parts of his report, specifically including his "opinions concerning the safety remedy provided as part of the recalls" and whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved, are neither relevant nor reliable.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: Dishman, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: 5:20cv272, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: negligence, product Liability, Experts
J. Higginbotham finds the district court improperly denied Ferrellgas's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The customer was injured while using a Ferrellgas propane tank and alleges a manufacturing defect and negligence. The injured party did not produce evidence showing why a cap over the tank's valve would be considered a seal. Packaging of the tank is not sealed and there is no way of showing what might have occurred during shipping. Reversed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Higginbotham , Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 23-10019, Categories: negligence, product Liability
J. Lagoa certifies to the Florida Supreme Court a question arising from the magistrate judge's decision awarding $1.7 million in damages to the insurance administrator and rejecting the crane distributor's claim that Florida's economic loss rule shielded it from liability in a negligence and unfair trade practices action arising from the collapse of a crane boom. Florida law is unclear as to the economic loss rule's applicability to the case. The Florida Supreme Court should consider whether the rule applies to negligence claims against a product distributor for the failure to alert a product owner of a known danger when the only damages claimed are to the product itself.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Lagoa, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 22-14104, Categories: negligence, product Liability
J. Gremillion finds that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment as to design defect and other claims in a customer's suit over injuries suffered at an amusement park that occurred when he landed head-first while exiting a slide. There are genuine issues of fact as to whether a deviation from the slide template caused the customer's injuries. Reversed in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Gremillion, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: CA-23-446, Categories: Evidence, negligence, product Liability
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
J. Hardy dismisses a home builder’s breach of contract and negligence claims against the lumber company that provided moist, and eventually moldy, materials for the builder's personal house. The homeowner lacks standing because the contract was with his company, which ultimately owns the house, not the home builder as an individual.
Court: USDC Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge: Hardy, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv1763, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: negligence, product Liability, Contract
J. Partida-Kipness finds that the lower court improperly dismissed the family's negligence claims related to a product recall in this case arising from an alleged "rollover accident involving a utility terrain vehicle." The lower court erred in granting the dealer's no-evidence summary judgment motion as to the recall-related claims, as the dealer's motion was "insufficient as a matter of law as to the element of duty." Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Partida-Kipness, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: 05-22-00677-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, negligence, product Liability
J. Pallmeyer mostly denies the sued construction materials company’s motion to dismiss an insurance company’s negligence, breach of contract and breach of implied warranties claims. The insurance company in this suit is acting as a subrogee for an agricultural products manufacturer, which bought calcium sulphate from the construction materials company and in turn sold it to a pet food manufacturer as a pet food additive. The court finds the insurance company’s negligence claim against the construction materials company is barred under Illinois’ Economic Loss Doctrine, but the remaining claims survive.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Pallmeyer, Filed On: January 30, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1988, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: negligence, product Liability, Warranty
J. Reidinger grants Pfizer’s motion to dismiss allegations of product liability brought by a consumer who claims an arthritis medication damaged her kidneys. The consumer reports that her doctor diagnosed her with stage 3 kidney disease, and that after she stopped taking Pfizer’s medication, her kidney condition improved. However, she presents only cursory information that is not enough to state a claim.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Reidinger, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv281, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Corporations, negligence, product Liability
J. Valderrama grants a food company’s motion to dismiss a shipping worker’s two claims for unfair and deceptive practices. The worker was injured when, while working inside a truck, a can of cooking spray produced by the food company ignited and cause a flash fire. Though the worker has other counts pending against the company for her injuries, the court finds she has not sufficiently alleged these two.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Valderrama, Filed On: January 16, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv7065, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Fraud, negligence, product Liability
J. Reidinger grants in part a vehicle manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment following allegations of negligence brought by a passenger after he was paralyzed from the waist down when the car crashed into a creek. The passenger argues that the manufacturer’s claim of contributory negligence, based on his and the driver’s intoxication, isn’t a defense because the car’s defects injured him more severally than he would’ve been otherwise. Because it can’t be determined under contributory negligence whether the passenger knew or should have known that the driver was drunk, the manufacturer fails to show that there is no genuine issue in terms of material fact.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Reidinger, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv112, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Vehicle, negligence, product Liability