Defective Products

Miami Court Examines Factors to Consider When Reviewing a Motion to Transfer Venue Following Unfortunate Car Accident

Published on: January 26, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Morrissey v. Subaru of America, Inc., a couple was injured when the vehicle one spouse was driving unexpectedly accelerated and collided with a stone fence in the United States Virgin Islands. Sadly, the wife was left permanently paralyzed as a result of the crash. Following the incident, the couple filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against the Japanese automobile manufacturer, the company’s U.S. distributor, and the dealership that sold the vehicle to its original owners.

In the couple’s complaint, they accused the defendants of negligence per se, failure to warn, negligently designing and manufacturing the vehicle, strict liability, and breach of warranty. The husband also sought damages for his loss of consortium.

Florida Appeals Court Orders New Trial Following Multi-Million Dollar Judgment Against Tobacco Companies

Published on: January 14, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, several tobacco companies filed an appeal following a multi-million dollar judgment that was entered against them in Florida. In the case, the defendants faced claims of negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud, brought by the estate of a man who died from health complications that were apparently caused by his cigarette addiction. Following trial, the jury ultimately determined the deceased man, who began smoking at age 15, was 20.5 percent responsible for his own death.

On appeal to Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, the defendants claimed a new trial was warranted because the plaintiff’s attorney made repeated inflammatory statements in front of jurors. Additionally, the tobacco companies argued the trial court committed error when it instructed the jury regarding the estate’s fraud claims and entered a joint and several final judgment that potentially held each company accountable for the entirety of the jury award. The defendants also asserted that the jury’s compensatory and punitive damages awards should have been reduced or set aside by the lower court, and their right to due process was violated. In response to the tobacco companies’ appeal, the plaintiff claimed the trial court committed error when it sustained several of the defendants’ objections regarding statements made by the estate’s lawyer.

Appellate Court Finds Florida Couple’s Products Liability Case is Time Barred

Published on: September 29, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., a Florida man was apparently seriously injured when a swimming pool filter unexpectedly exploded in 2012. Following the incident, the man and his wife filed a products liability lawsuit against the filter manufacturer, the distributor of the product, and the company that installed it 13 years earlier. According to the couple’s complaint, the defendants committed negligence and other torts against the man when they manufactured, sold, and installed the allegedly defective swimming pool filter. Because of this, the couple sought damages for the man’s resulting head injury.

In response to the couple’s lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming the 12-year statute of repose enumerated in Section 95.031 of the Florida Statutes barred the couple’s products liability case. Much like a statute of limitations, Florida’s statute of repose limits the time frame during which specific causes of action may be filed. If a lawsuit is not brought before the statute of repose expires, a plaintiff’s claim is typically barred forever. The trial court agreed with the defendants and entered judgment in their favor. The couple then filed an appeal with Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

Middle District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Published on: June 18, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Dugas v. 3M Company, a man filed a lawsuit in Florida against several companies over his alleged exposure to asbestos fibers while serving in the United States Navy. In his complaint, the man claimed he developed fatal mesothelioma as a result of this exposure to the dangerous product. In addition, the man alleged that each of the defendant companies or their predecessors processed, manufactured, mined, distributed, or otherwise supplied asbestos fibers to the Navy. In response to the negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and loss of consortium lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

First, the Middle District of Florida examined the defendants’ claims that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the man failed to comply with the requirements enumerated in Section 774.205 of the Florida Statutes. According to the court, Florida substantive law and federal procedural law applied to the case because it was removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. After examining the complaint, the court said Section 774.205 conflicted with the notice requirements included in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, the federal court stated Florida’s heightened notice standard for asbestos cases was required to yield to the federal pleading requirements.

Florida Supreme Court Rules a Timely Objection to a Jury’s Inconsistent Verdict Must be Made in a Products Liability Case or the Issue is Waived

Published on: May 19, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida Supreme Court has held that a party to a products liability action must make a timely objection to an inconsistent jury verdict before jurors are discharged or the issue is waived. In Coba v. Tricam Industries, Inc., a Florida man was killed after he fell 13 feet from an apparently faulty ladder. After the fatal accident, the personal representative of the man’s estate sued the ladder manufacturer and distributor for both negligence and strict liability in a Florida court.

During trial, the plaintiff offered testimony from two of the deceased man’s relatives who witnessed his unfortunate fall. In addition, the plaintiff provided contested evidence regarding an alleged design defect included in the ladder. After the evidence was presented, jurors were given instructions regarding the standard for finding a design defect under both strict liability and negligence theories. In addition, the jury received instructions about the standard for finding negligence based on the distribution and sale of an allegedly defective ladder. Without objection from either party, the court also provided jurors with special interrogatories about the ladder’s purported design defect.

Northern District of Florida Dismisses Defective Design Case Over Lack of Supporting Evidence

Published on: April 29, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Witt v. Howmedicall Osteonics Corp., a woman had a medical device surgically implanted into her knee in 2008. The following year, she had the allegedly defective device removed and underwent total knee replacement surgery. After her second surgical procedure, the woman filed a strict liability and negligence lawsuit against the manufacturer of the medical device in the Northern District of Florida. According to the woman’s complaint, she suffered personal injuries as a result of the medical product’s defective design.

In response to her lawsuit, the medical device manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment with the court. In general, a motion for summary judgment may be granted when there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When considering such a motion, a court must view the facts offered in the light that is most favorable to the non-moving party.

Appeals Court Overturns Jury Verdict in Florida Failure to Warn Lawsuit

Published on: March 23, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Trek Bicycle Corp. v. Miguelez, a Florida man apparently sustained personal injuries when the road bicycle he was riding suddenly stopped after an unspecified object became caught in the spokes. As a result of his harm, the man filed a failure to warn, products liability, and defective design and manufacture lawsuit against the manufacturer of the bicycle and the store that sold it to him in a Florida court. Although the bicycle manufacturer obtained a directed verdict regarding the hurt man’s other claims, the trial court declined to issue judgment in the company’s favor with regard to the man’s failure to warn cause of action. As a result, the lawsuit proceeded to a jury trial.

At trial, the hurt man claimed he would not have suffered harm if the bike company had placed a warning sticker stating the carbon forks could potentially crack or fail on the device. Following a jury trial, the injured bicyclist was awarded $800,000.00 in damages as a result of the bike manufacturer’s negligent failure to warn. Still, jurors opted not to issue a verdict against the bicycle retailer.

Florida Appellate Court Reverses Directed Verdict in Favor of Tobacco Company in Negligence and Strict Liability Case

Published on: December 15, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Whitney v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., a woman filed a strict liability and negligence lawsuit against a tobacco company in a Florida state court over the company’s allegedly defectively designed cigarettes. According to the woman, the design defects made her more apt to become addicted to cigarette smoking. As a result, the woman purportedly suffered lung cancer.

At trial, the woman presented a great deal of evidence to support her claims. As part of her case, the woman obtained testimony from an expert physician. The doctor testified under oath that the purported design defects included in the tobacco company’s product made it more likely for smokers to become addicted. The physician also claimed that the cigarettes at issue made it possible for carcinogen-containing smoke to enter deeper lung cavities than other types of tobacco products. According to the expert, this made it more likely that a smoker who used the product at issue would develop cancer. In addition, the doctor stated the cigarettes did not deliver on their promise to reduce health risks by lowering the amount of tar in the product.

Appeals Court Overturns $5.9 Million Florida Wrongful Death Verdict Against Tobacco Company

Published on: October 15, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a Florida woman filed a wrongful death case in the Middle District of Florida against a tobacco company over her husband’s 1996 lung cancer death. In her complaint, the woman sought both compensatory and punitive damages from the company that manufactured the cigarettes her spouse smoked throughout their marriage. According to the woman, his nicotine addiction caused her husband’s death. Evidence provided to the court suggested that the decedent was also addicted to alcohol.

The man’s cancer was reportedly discovered when he was admitted to a local hospital “complaining of confusion, disorientation, and impairment of equilibrium.” At the time, the man’s treating physicians diagnosed him with lung cancer that spread to his brain. The man’s death certificate listed “lung cancer” as his cause of death, but the man’s family apparently refused a biopsy to confirm his diagnosis.

Southern District of Florida Dismisses Mesothelioma Lawsuit Against Manufacturing Company: Rothchild v. Crane Co.

Published on: August 14, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Southern District of Florida has dismissed a man’s damages claim against a company he alleges caused him to be exposed to asbestos. In Rothchild v. Crane Co., a man who contracted mesothelioma from his exposure to asbestos fibers filed a lawsuit in state court seeking damages from a manufacturing and distributing company. After the case was removed to federal court, the man alleged he was injured as a result of his exposure to products containing asbestos that the company produced and sold. Although the man claimed that he was exposed to the company’s asbestos-containing products at a manufacturing plant in Boynton Beach between 1961 and 2003 in his state court complaint, neither party to the lawsuit referred to this purported exposure after the case was removed to federal court. In response to the man’s injury lawsuit, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The company argued that the man failed to plead his case with enough specificity to determine whether the business had any role in his asbestos exposure.

According to the court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a plaintiff in a lawsuit plead his or her case with a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In addition, the facts alleged must be sufficient to demonstrate that a plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. The court stated it is required to view a plaintiff’s allegations as true when considering a motion to dismiss a lawsuit. Still, a court may only consider those allegations and exhibits provided in the plaintiff’s complaint.

After examining the man’s federal pleading, the court held that it was not sufficient. The Southern District of Florida stated the complaint did not contain enough facts to demonstrate the company may have committed the acts alleged. Because of this, the federal court granted the company’s motion to dismiss the man’s lawsuit and provided the plaintiff with 30 days during which to amend his pleading to add more specificity.