539 results for 'cat:"Product Liability"'.
J. Huntsman grants the car owners' motion for discovery sanctions based on the defendant car company's failure to appear at one deposition and failure to provide a prepared witness at another deposition in this lawsuit concerning a Hyundai vehicle and its alleged defects. The plaintiffs are entitled to expenses and attorney fees caused by the company's failure to appear, as well as the "constructive failure to adequately present a corporate representative."
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Huntsman, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv297, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Sanctions, product Liability, Discovery
J. Marks grants a pharmaceutical company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on this pharmaceutical product liability lawsuit brought by a cancer patient allegation that the chemotherapy medication Taxotre resulted in her permanent hair loss. The patient claims strict products liability failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and fraud and deceit. She failed to properly plead her fraud claims with particularity and filed this case outside the two-year statute of limitations.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Marks, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv649, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Health Care, product Liability
J. Gillmor grants summary judgment to the manufacturer of a helicopter involved in a fatal helicopter crash in negligence and product liability claims. The family of a man who died in the crash cannot show that the manufacturer knowingly caused or concealed flaws that may have led to the crash. There is also no evidence that a provision of a statute, governing liability of aircraft manufacturers even after many years following delivery of the aircraft, applies. The helicopter was delivered 18 years before the crash and there is no evidence of a design defect in replacement components installed in 2018 altered the helicopter to the extent that the rolling provision applies.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Gillmor, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv193, NOS: Airplane - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, Wrongful Death, Aviation
J. Wilder-Doomes grants a request by an insurer of a 28-acre mixed-housing development, compelling a chemical manufacturer of a termiticide and mold spray to produce documentation related to its purchase of a product that it repackaged as “Mold-Care.” The manufacturer failed to satisfy its burden that it could properly withhold production of its “Master Repack Agreement” as confidential business information. The manufacturer is ordered to produce unredacted copies of the agreement to the insurer for its state-law product liability lawsuit against the Tennessee-based chemical company.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Wilder-Doomes, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv431, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Property, 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. Bell grants a group of medical product makers’ partial motion to dismiss product liability allegations after a spinal surgery patient developed tuberculosis following her operation. The patient claims that the group’s sale of “FiberCel” to the hospital where she had her surgery done is not covered under the North Carolina Blood and Tissue Shield Statute. She incorrectly argues the group’s sale of FiberCel, as a processed-tissue product, is not covered under the statute because it is not specifically blood, a blood product or human tissue, but a “tissue-based product.” Although FiberCel was recalled two months after the patient’s surgery for also resulting in tuberculosis in other patients, the product is shielded by the statute because its language includes any person or institution involved in the “processing” of human tissue.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Bell, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 5:21cv172, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Government, Health Care, 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. Flynn finds the Court of Appeals properly reversed the trial court’s judgment excluding hospitals from drug liability. “A hospital that supplies and administers a dangerously defective drug in conjunction with providing a healthcare service can be a ‘seller’ that is ‘engaged in the business of selling’ for purposes of liability.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court, Judge: Flynn, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: S070082, Categories: Health Care, product Liability
J. Flanagan grants a generator production company’s partial dismissal in this product liability class action brought by an ice cream truck driver who was chemically burned when the truck’s gasoline tank malfunctioned. The driver argues the company knew the tanks were faulty, claiming fraud by omission. Because the driver fails to give sufficient information as to when the company supposedly began hiding this information, and because he does not point to any specific way that the company tried to hide information, this part of his claim fails.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Flanagan, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 7:23cv1329, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, product Liability, Contract
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. Chung remands a dispute between a group of former teachers and a chemical manufacture in which the teachers claim they were subjected to health risks due to being exposed to the manufacture's chemicals found in fluorescent light
ballast capacitors. A jury found the manufacture liable and awarded the teachers $185 million in damages. But the lower court incorrectly applied Missouri law regarding the statute of repose and damages, when it should have applied Washington's Product Liability Act, which has no statute on repose. Further proceedings are needed as a result. Reversed.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Chung , Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 83287-5-I, Categories: product Liability, Choice Of Law
J. Dimke declines to dismiss the customer's complaint alleging that the vape supplies company manufactured a cigarette battery that spontaneously exploded in his pocket and injured him. The company argues that the complaint is time-barred due to the three-year statute of limitations starting from when he discovered his injury. However, it took the customer a significant amount of time to uncover the previously unknown identity of the company and even the smoke shop that sold the defective cigarette battery admitted that it had trouble finding the identity of its supplier, hence why the customer's discovery was hindered.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Washington, Judge: Dimke, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv5014, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, Discovery
J. Lin grants the consumer's motion to consolidate her class action alleging that the beverage container manufacturer did not inform consumers that its popular Stanley tumbler products contained lead. The beverage container manufacturer argues that a stay or dismissal is more appropriate than consolidation, because consolidation will require conducting discovery with all named plaintiffs instead of just the top plaintiff, but this argument "strains common sense" as the beverage container manufacturer would already likely seek depositions against multiple class members in the event that the consumer's lawsuit was the only action.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lin, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv191, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: Civil Procedure, product Liability, Class Action
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
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
J. Rakoff finds that the district court properly granted class certification in a consumer class action concerning the marketing of the pet health product Cosequin. The class expert's proposed damages model was sufficiently sound and developed to satisfy this standard at the class certification stage. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Rakoff, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 22-55744, Categories: Damages, product Liability, Class Action
J. Drell grants a request by the seller of a Caterpillar bulldozer to a parish government, dismissing the company from a wrongful death suit filed by the widow and children of the vehicle’s operator. The operator’s family has no reasonable possibility of recovery under state law, and they have not shown the company was a professional vendor with control over the design or construction of the bulldozer. Furthermore, because a warning to wear a seatbelt was posted on the machine within the operator’s view, the seller did not have a duty to verbally warn parish employees that operating the bulldozer without wearing the seatbelt could be dangerous.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Drell, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv672, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Employment, product Liability, Wrongful Death
J. Pepper grants a manufacturer’s motion to enforce the court’s discovery order and for sanctions against an individual. The individual filed suit against a manufacturer claiming he was injured when a chair the company made collapsed, resulting in quadriplegia. The court ordered the individual to respond to the manufacturer’s discovery requests, but he has not fully complied. The court grants the manufacturer’s motion to compel discovery and orders the individual to produce the requested documents by a certain deadline or face additional sanctions.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Pepper, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv586, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Sanctions, product Liability, Discovery
J. Devers dismisses a motorcycle dealer as a party to this suit and affirms the other parties’ claim that the dealer was fraudulently added. A couple bought a motorcycle elsewhere and noticed it was leaking oil, then took it to the dealer for repair. After a successful repair, the couple crashed when part of the braking system failed, killing the wife and causing serious injury to the husband. The other parties argue the husband and his wife’s executrix added the dealer to foil diversity jurisdiction because they could not claim negligence against the dealer. They then tried to remand the suit, but as they are found to have fraudulently added the dealer, and because diversity jurisdiction still exists, the dealer is dismissed and the motion to remand is denied.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Dever, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv591, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Fraud, product Liability, Jurisdiction