31 results for 'cat:"Evidence" AND cat:"Product Liability"'.
J. Vance grants the unopposed request for summary judgment to a Toyota manufacturer and a sales company, dismissing product liability claims by the driver of a 2014 Lexus ES350 who alleges injuries from the car’s airbag failure to deploy when he crashed into a guard rail. The Toyota companies presented certified medical records taken at the hospital where the litigant was treated after the accident, in which the treating physician stated that he reportedly “drank a significant amount of alcohol and then crashed his car on purpose [in] an attempt to end his life secondary to depression and suicidal thoughts after a break-up 5 months ago.” Furthermore, the litigant has failed to present evidence sufficient to establish the essential elements of his defective airbag claims.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Vance, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv4607, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Vehicle, product Liability
J. Matsumo rules on a series of motions in limine in a personal injury product liability lawsuit against BMW, who was sued by a driver who says his right thumb was partially amputated when his 2013 BMW X5’s Soft Close Automatic door technology suddenly activated. The litigant is allowed to produce photographs of his injury as well as evidence related to a prior recall issued by BMW regarding the door closing tech, while BMW can present evidence to bolster its argument that external factors caused his injuries, but may not present evidence showing the vehicle manufacturer’s compliance with federal safety regulations, finding the information irrelevant.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Matsumoto, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 2:17cv209, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Tort, product Liability
J. Aenlle-Rocha finds in favor of Home Depot against the customer's complaint that it sold him Graco Magnum X5 paint sprayer that “sparked” and caught on fire, causing serious burns to the customer's right hand, wrist and forearm. The customer does not provide any admissible evidence of a manufacturing defect about the sprayer. His only expect does not affirmatively state that the sprayer had a manufacturing defect, only that it possibly had one.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Aenlle-Rocha, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 8:20cv2127, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Experts
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. Marks grants a consumer’s motion for default judgment in this Federal Odometer Act suit against an automotive sales company. The consumer alleges when he purchased the vehicle that the actual mileage on the dash was 66,125 miles, but he later found out it had over 100,000 miles. He does in fact establish the liability claim for false mileage certification in violation of the Act. The court dismisses most other claims for fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Marks, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv66, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: evidence, Fraud, product Liability
J. Knapp grants the ladder manufacturer's motion to exclude the testimony of the expert witness, ruling that although he is qualified to give an opinion on any defects in the ladder, his visual observation method to determine the reason for the ladder's failure is insufficient to establish causation. Additionally, without the testimony of the expert witness, the injured individual has not put forth a viable manufacturing defect claim and his complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Knapp, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv72, NOS: Tort Product Liability - Real Property, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Experts
J. Vascura grants the shingle manufacturer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the homeowners have produced no expert testimony or other evidence to support their claim the shingles installed at their home were defective. Rather, the majority of their claims relate to the improper installation of the shingles by the roofing company; therefore, the manufacturer cannot be held liable.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Vascura, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv3231, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Contract
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. Gillmor rules on several motions in limine in a wrongful death case where a mother and her infant child were killed when their home’s water heater exploded. For example, the water heater manufacturers’ request to split the trial between liability and damages is granted, as evidence toward each is not reliant on the other and bifurcation would expedite the proceedings. Evidence about the possible ignition and status of power in the neighborhood may be presented. An explosions expert’s testimony is not precluded, but his current computer animations of the explosion are excluded because they do not reflect the water heater, and the closet it was in, as they were on the day of the incident.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Gillmor, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv254, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Tort, product Liability
J. Nalbandian finds the trial court properly granted the manufacturers' motion for summary judgment in a products liability case. The lack of expert testimony of causation was fatal to the patients' claims, as such testimony is required in complex, multidistrict litigation. Furthermore, the expert witness's reliance on a single clinical trial that did not conclusively prove a link between the diabetes drug and heart failure and his decision to ignore numerous other studies that showed no causal link between the two allowed the trial court to grant the drug manufacturers' motion to exclude his testimony. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 22-6078, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Experts
J. Moody grants a hospital food producer’s motion for summary judgment against claims of wrongful death filed by a grandmother’s surviving family members, who were unable to prove her death was due to eating defective, high-sodium food.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Arkansas , Judge: Moody, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv995, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Wrongful Death
J. Maze grants Fiat Chrysler’s motion for summary judgment on product liability claims brought by a couple alleging defective product design, manufacturing defect and breach of warranty. The couple failed to prove that their Fiat 500X SUV caught fire in the driveway, then the fire spread to the home, because of a defective engine. They only brought their own photos of the fire and the fire report, and not any expert testimony that could point to Fiat Chrysler’s liability.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Maze, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv980, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Warranty
Per curiam, the circuit vacates the lower court’s certification of a class in a product liability case against Ford. The lower court failed to conduct a proper analysis of the commonality element of the class's claims against Ford for defective brake cylinders on certain trucks, including whether design changes made over several years solved the issue and eliminated certain class members. Vacated.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 22-0109, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Class Action
J. Higginbotham finds the trial court properly found Honda liable for severe injuries sustained by the driver and passenger in a Honda CR-V from a side-impact accident. The court awarded over $21 million in damages. The severest injury was not caused by vehicle impact, but by the driver’s ejection from his seatbelt, causing his head to hit the passenger’s. An expert explained that the crash should have been without serious injury because the “configuration and severity” were below parameters of testing set by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. He also said that Honda’s representative admitted that it did not “run a side impact test with a far side crash test dummy.” The testimony was properly admitted, with opinions based on reliable methodologies. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Honda liable, and the court’s application of the statutory presumption of nonliability was properly executed on all fronts. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Higginbotham, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: 22-40790, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Experts
[Consolidated.] J. VanMeter finds that the lower court improperly admitted evidence of other accidents occurring during use of ladderstands, such as the one from which a hunter fell when the tree strap broke, then failed to instruct the jury to refrain from considering the evidence. Reversed in part.
Court: Kentucky Supreme Court, Judge: VanMeter, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 2020-SC-0247-DG, Categories: evidence, product Liability
J. Hurwitz finds that the district court properly entered judgment after five public-agency exemplar plaintiffs sued a company alleging that it violated the False Claims Acts by representing that its polyvinyl chloride pipes were compliant with industry standards. Sufficient evidence of falsity supported the verdict. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Hurwitz, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 21-56288, Categories: evidence, product Liability
[Consolidated.] J. Solomon finds that the appellate division properly admitted evidence regarding the marketing of pelvic mesh medical devices that allegedly caused plaintiff's injuries. Such evidence generally is inadmissible, but negligence claims in the instant action are premised on whether the manufacturer performed clinical trials or studies, which opened the door to the evidence at issue. Affirmed.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Solomon , Filed On: July 25, 2023, Case #: A-21-21, Categories: evidence, product Liability
J. Gallagher grants a MacBook owner her motion to exclude testimony of Apple’s expert testimony after the MacBook’s batteries caught fire and damaged the owner’s apartment and surrounding apartments. Because the expert’s measure of loss does not use diminution in value and the value of the loss after the fire to determine what damages Apple should pay, but instead uses actual cash value of the property before the fire, the expert’s testimony is excluded.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv651, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: evidence, product Liability, Experts
J. Sargus grants, in part, the hernia mesh manufacturer's motion in limine, ruling evidence regarding other products made by the company will only be admitted if it is relative to the patients' injuries, not merely as an attempt to prove the manufacturer is a bad company. Additionally, testimony regarding the manufacturer's financial condition will be admitted only so far as it relates to the feasibility of alternative design studies that may have been conducted prior to the creation of the allegedly defective device.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Sargus, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 2:18cv1022, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Health Care, product Liability
J. Riley finds that the trial court properly ruled in product liability claims brought after a power bank charging device caused a fire because evidence presented by the insurer did not demonstrate defendant was the domestic distributor of the charging device. Affirmed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Riley, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 22A-CT-2699, Categories: evidence, product Liability
J. Winmill grants in part cross-motions for sanctions for spoliation of evidence in a product liability suit after an employee was injured when a forklift failed. The workers compensation insurer alleges that the forklift manufacturer did not return a hydraulic cylinder until after discovery had closed and sold the forklift attachment at issue, and the manufacturer alleges that the insurer failed to preserve daily vehicle inspection reports. The forklift manufacturer did spoliate evidence as the forklift attachment is relevant to the claims at issue and the manufacturer's tests and inspections of the attachment are therefore excluded. The insurer had a duty to retain inspection records because they should have known the records would be relevant to the insurer's defenses. The manufacturer is entitled to a permissive adverse inference that the records would have favored the manufacturer's version of events.
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Winmill, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv376, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Sanctions, product Liability
J. O'Leary finds the trial court properly ruled in favor of Kia in this suit alleging an auto defect. Though the court rejected Kia’s excuses for withholding certain documents, it did not find that it intentionally concealed them. It was appropriate to refuse to instruct the jury that Kia had concealed evidence. The auto customer forfeits the issue, misrepresenting to the California Court of Appeals that the trial court in fact found concealment. Also, Kia’s paralegal, who verified discovery requests and whose testimony was excluded, had no helpful knowledge for the jury. The customer made no timely objection to the size of the jury room and thus waived the objection that the jurors felt rushed. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: O’Leary , Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: G060912, Categories: evidence, Jury, product Liability