63 results for 'cat:"Product Liability" AND cat:"Experts"'.
J. Kuhar finds that the appeals court erroneously held that a products liability claim over a failed safety harness had not been resolved in a New Jersey federal court and could be tried in Utah. The New Jersey case ended in summary judgment for the manufacturer when that court ruled that consumers failed to produce an admissible expert report and testimony. The appeals court took this to mean the case had not been resolved on its merits, but a determination that the consumers failed to meet their initial burden of proof by providing necessary expert testimony is tantamount to a decision on the merits under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Reversed.
Court: Utah Supreme Court, Judge: Petersen, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 20220282, Categories: 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. 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
J. Frank grants the knee implant makers' motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment in the implant recipient's suit alleging that her knee replacement loosened after implantation. The expert's opinion that the particular implant used is especially prone to debonding exhibits "several red flags" regarding her methodology, and at the time of implantation, no knee devices were on the market with the features the expert cites as necessary to prevent debonding. Since the implant recipient's claims regarding the device rely on the now-excluded expert testimony, those claims cannot survive summary judgment.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 0:22cv331, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, experts
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. Dishman denies the plaintiff vehicle owners' motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this product liability lawsuit arising from a fire that they allege started in a recreational vehicle as a result of a defective refrigerator. The defendant refrigerator manufacturer's expert is a certified fire and explosion investigator who has investigated "more than 1,000 fires, including RV fires where gas absorption refrigerators were present." The court does not find his opinions to be unreliable and notes the spoliation issue "can be adequately challenged on cross-examination."
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: product Liability, experts
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. DuBose grants, in part, a hip replacement manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment brought by a patient who developed medical complications from flaws in the replacement. The patient states that just six weeks after the procedure, she was walking and heard a popping noise, and adds that her hip locks up, causing her to fall. The doctor found in her radiograph the hip was eccentrically located and needed a revision surgery, then another surgery to address infection. The patient failed to show evidence for all claims except the implied warranty one. The manufacturer also moved to exclude all opinions from experts. The first expert will be prohibited from testifying about an alternative design, and the second witness, a doctor, is excluded due to his reliability to testify as to alternative design.
Court: USDC Southern District of Alabama, Judge: DuBose, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv190, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, experts
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. Jolivette Brown denies summary judgment to a flooring company on its argument the lessee of a gymnasium building, a popular Catholic high school, cannot recover for fire damage allegedly caused by the improper disposal of self-heating wood stain rags. The law is unclear as to whether St. Augustine, as a lessee, has a right of action to pursue a claim for property damages or loss of property value under these circumstances. Additionally, there are fact issues in dispute regarding the extent of the obligation assumed by St. Augustine by way of the lease agreement.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Jolivette Brown, Filed On: January 17, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv5292, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Damages, product Liability, experts
J. Gillmor declines to exclude testimony from two experts for a case where a water heater exploded and killed a mother and her infant daughter, finding that the fire and explosion expert and the engineer expert submitted by the deceased’s relatives are qualified by years of experience and certifications, and used reliable data to present relevant testimony.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Gillmor, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv254, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, experts, Wrongful Death
J. Schreier denies a motion for summary judgment brought by a steel company following the collapse of a hopper bin which killed two individuals. The insurance company's motion to exclude expert testimony as moot is also denied. Punitive damages are not available unless a tort has been committed. Because the steel company's bad faith claim is dismissed, summary judgment is granted in favor of the insurance company on the steel company’s request for punitive damages.
Court: USDC South Dakota, Judge: Schreier, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: 4:19cv4156, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, product Liability, experts
J. Welbaum finds the lower court properly granted the car seat manufacturer's motion for summary judgment in products liability. The mother failed to prove a defective buckle on her son's car seat was the proximate cause of death for either of her children. The daughter, who ultimately died of burn injuries, was able to exit the vehicle while the mother was attempting to remove her son from the car, while expert testimony and the mother's own recollection of events established the son likely suffered fatal injuries from smoke inhalation even before the mother's attempts to extricate him from the seat. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welbaum, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4561, Categories: product Liability, experts, Wrongful Death
J. Poplin grants the defendant gun manufacturers' motion to preclude the opinion of an undisclosed expert in this product liability lawsuit alleging that a gun owner was injured when a pistol "unintentionally discharged." The doctor was not timely disclosed, as required, and the gun owner does not argue that the delay was "harmless or substantially justified."
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv31, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Procedure, product Liability, experts
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
J. Hurd denies an insurer’s motion to exclude two experts’ testimony seeking to rebut claims that a manufacturer’s exhaust fan was defective and was the source of a fire that damaged an insured’s apartment building. The court finds their testimony, which suggests the fire was resulted from wood placed near a heating source, is sufficiently based on reliable principles and methods. The court further grants the insurer’s motion to preclude the experts’ cumulative testimony.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Hurd, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv1356, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Insurance, product Liability, experts
J. Kennelly denies a pharmaceutical company’s and patients’ motion to exclude the testimony of expert witnesses in a litigation by patients who claim they suffered cardiovascular or blood clot injuries as a result of taking prescription testosterone replacement therapy drugs. The pharmaceutical company’s motion for summary judgment on patients’ claims for express and implied breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, consumer protection and unjust enrichment is granted. However, the patients’ motion for summary judgment on claims of fail-to-warn, strict liability, loss of consortium and punitive damages shall be denied and returned to the home districts. The punitive damages question shall be transferred to the Middle District of Florida. This one order applies to several, unconsolidated cases.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kennelly, Filed On: November 1, 2023, Case #: 1:17cv3775, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, experts, Class Action