Articles Posted in Products Liability

Parents assume that the products they purchase for their children are safe. However, that is not always the case. Too often, manufacturers rush products to market without having conducted the necessary safety testing. When it comes to products marketed toward children, any risk is unacceptable. Indiana parents should know that manufacturers can be held liable for any injuries caused by their product through an Indiana product liability lawsuit.

On April 12, 2019, Fisher-Price issued a recall of its popular infant sleeper, the Rock ‘n Play. The Rock n’ Play is a compact, foldable sleeper that is unique in that it allows infants to lie at a 30-degree angle while sleeping. The company marketed the product to parents hoping to get their babies to sleep longer, which is a significant concern for many parents of young children. Since Fisher-Price released the product in 2009, it is estimated that it has sold over 4.7 million units.

According to a recent article by the Washington Post, the Rock ‘n Play was manufactured and released to market with a complete dearth of clinical research into the product’s safety. The company appears to have only consulted with a single doctor in the creation of the product, a doctor whose medical license was later revoked. It was not until eight years later that Fisher-Price hired a pediatrician to look into the safety of the Rock ‘n Play.

Earlier in November, a written opinion was issued about an Indiana product liability case discussing whether a plaintiff’s incorrect use of the product is a complete defense for the manufacturer. The court held that a plaintiff’s misuse of a product can be a total defense if it is proven by the manufacturer.

The Factual Scenario

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff purchased a rotary tool powered by air that was manufactured by the defendant. The tool included an instruction manual, outlining the proper use of the tool. Among other matters, the tool’s directions informed users to always wear safety glasses when using the tool; not to only use the cut-off wheel attachment if the safety guard is secured into place; and, only use attachments that are rated for a minimum of 25,000 RPM (revs per minute). The tool did not come with the referenced safety guard and the instruction manual did not inform users where they could obtain one.

Evidently, the plaintiff was helping a friend with a project that required the use of the cut-off attachment. While doing so, the plaintiff wore eyeglasses, which he believed would be adequate protection. In addition, the tool did not have a safety guard installed and the cut-off wheel attachment he was using was rated for only 19,000 RPM. The cut-off wheel attachment subsequently broke and struck the plaintiff in the face, causing serious injuries including the loss of his eye.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in an Indiana product liability case dismissing a plaintiff’s case for failing to file the required expert’s affidavit. The case is important for all Indiana product liability plaintiffs, because it explains when an expert witness may be required and also illustrates the potential consequences of not complying with the procedural requirements of the Indiana Product Liability Act (IPLA).

The Facts of the Case

In 2007, the plaintiff had her doctor implant an Intrauterine Device (IUD) in her uterus. The IUD, which was manufactured by the defendant, is a form of long-term birth control.

A few years later in 2013, the plaintiff asked her doctor to remove the IUD. When the doctor attempted to remove the IUD, however, only part of the device came out, leaving the rest of the device in the plaintiff’s uterus. The doctor advised the plaintiff that to remove the remaining portion of the IUD, the plaintiff would need a total hysterectomy.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued an opinion in a product liability case that illustrates the importance of vetting and selecting an expert witness in an Indiana product liability case. Ultimately, the court concluded that the experts whom the plaintiff planned to have testify at trial did not base their opinions on sufficiently reliable methodology, and thus it excluded the experts’ opinions from testimony.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s son was killed in a house fire in the plaintiff’s basement. After the fire, investigators searched through the basement for signs of what could have caused the fire. Several battery cells from their son’s laptop were recovered. One of the battery cells had ruptured, and the plaintiffs believed it was due to a defect in the battery. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a product liability case against the manufacturer of the laptop, the battery, and several components of the battery.

In support of their case, the plaintiffs presented testimony from two expert witnesses. The first was a “battery expert” who had a PhD in inorganic chemistry. He planned on testifying that, according to his experience, the fire was caused by an internal defect in the battery. While the expert acknowledged that being exposed to the heat of the fire could have caused the battery cell to rupture, the expert concluded that if that were the case, he would have expected all three battery cells to have ruptured. However, since only one cell ruptured, he concluded that the most likely cause of the fire was an internal defect in the ruptured cell.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion that will likely be of interest to anyone considering an Indiana product liability lawsuit against a vehicle manufacturer. The case presented the court with the opportunity to answer two questions. First, it addressed whether the lower court was proper in dismissing the plaintiff’s case against the defendant vehicle manufacturer based on a perceived inconsistency in the jury’s verdict. And second, it addressed the issue of, if the plaintiff’s case was sufficient as a matter of law, whether the $1 million damages that the jury awarded him were adequate. Ultimately, the court resolved both questions in favor of the plaintiff.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a roll-over accident when the van he was operating rear-ended another vehicle on the highway. While the initial collision was minor, the plaintiff was seriously injured when the van rolled, and he hit his head on the roof of the vehicle. After the accident, the plaintiff was permanently paralyzed from the neck down.

The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against the vehicle’s manufacturer, making several claims. The plaintiff presented evidence showing that the manufacturer did not conduct any safety testing on the seatbelt mechanism in the van. The plaintiff also had an expert witness testify that, had testing been conducted, the results would have indicated that the seatbelt mechanism was unsafe, and the manufacturer would have likely used a safer mechanism in its place.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion, a federal appellate court dismissed a case filed by an employee who claimed that he developed health issues after being exposed to a toxic substance. The employee was working on his employer’s roof and was exposed to fumes of a glue that contained methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI). The employee brought a claim against the glue manufacturer, alleging that the exposure to MDI caused him neurological and psychological problems, and he was not properly warned of the health risks.

After the parties engaged in discovery, the court dismissed the claim. It found that under Indiana law, a toxic tort claim required an expert on the issue of causation, and the employee did not provide such evidence. He only identified an expert on the language warnings but did not provide an expert on causation.

The employee argued that six treating physicians who provided reports were experts, even though they were not identified as experts in discovery. However, the court found that the employee was required to disclose who he planned to offer as an expert witness. In addition, the physicians’ reports the employee attached only summarized the employee’s symptoms and suggested a course of treatment. The court determined that the experts did not discuss causation and failed to state that they believed the MDI caused the employee’s health issues or explain why the glue may have caused his neurological and psychological problems. In contrast, the defendant provided an assessment from the World Health Organization, stating that MDI can irritate lung tissues and cause asthma-like symptoms, but it is not associated with other bad outcomes. As a result, the court dismissed the case.

Continue reading

Over the past several years, General Motors has paid out over $2 billion in fines and damages related to faulty ignition switches in several of the company’s models. In cases across the country, accident victims claimed that GM was responsible for their injuries, due to the faulty switches. However, the problem was not just that the switches were faulty but also that there was evidence that GM knew about the defects but failed to take appropriate action.

After the defect was discovered, GM filed for bankruptcy. Post-bankruptcy, GM then argued that it should not be held liable in any of the lawsuits stemming from the faulty ignition switch that were filed prior to the company filing for bankruptcy. An earlier lower court ruling rejected the company’s claim, finding that the company may be held liable for the pre-bankruptcy claims. GM then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to a national news source, the United States Supreme Court recently rejected GM’s appeal, leaving in place the lower court decision. Some experts hypothesize that the most recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion could expose the auto-manufacturing giant to liability in a significant number of unsettled cases, potentially resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Continue reading

Whenever someone is involved in an accident, certain duties are triggered. One of those duties is to preserve any evidence that may become useful to the opposing party in the event that a lawsuit is later filed by the accident victim. A party’s failure to preserve material evidence can result in a variety of sanctions being imposed against that party, including the judge entering judgment in favor of the opposing party. A recent case in front of a federal court of appeals illustrates this concept.

Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding:  The Facts

The plaintiff, Schaefer, was a construction worker who routinely worked with scaffolding. On the day in question, a piece of scaffolding came loose and struck Schaefer in the head, causing serious injuries. Schaefer filed a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the scaffolding, as well as related claims against his own employer as well as the company that contracted the work to be done. Relevant to this case was Schaefer’s claim against the manufacturer of the scaffolding.

Before the trial began, Schaefer was informed that the actual piece of scaffolding that struck him in the head was no longer in the possession of the defendant. Believing this evidence to be crucial to his case, Schaefer asked the court to enter judgment in his favor because the evidence had been in the sole control of the defendant, and it was their duty to preserve it. Schaefer claimed that it was reasonably foreseeable that he would have filed a product liability claim against the manufacturer, and that triggered a duty to preserve the evidence.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a product liability case filed against a ride-on lawnmower manufacturer. In the case, Parks v. Ariens, the court held that the defendant manufacturer was not negligent in failing to install a roll-over protection system (ROPS) on a ride-on lawnmower because it offered the ROPS as optional equipment at an additional cost.

The Facts of the Case

In 2006, Parks purchased a used ride-on lawnmower from a licensed dealer. At the time of the purchase, the roll-over-protection system, which consisted of a roll-cage and seatbelt, was optional equipment that a buyer could purchase at an additional cost. When Parks was discussing the purchase of the mower with the defendant’s salesperson, the salesperson discussed the type of terrain where Parks would be using the mower. While the salesperson did not recall whether he offered the ROPS package to Parks, he did testify that it was his common practice to always ask if the customer wanted the package.

Parks decided to purchase the mower but not to add the ROPS. About seven years after the purchase date, Parks was killed when the mower rolled, trapping him underneath. His wife filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the lawn mower. She claimed that the manufacturer was negligent in failing to install the ROPS on the mower before selling it to her husband.

Continue reading

When a party takes a case to trial and does not get the result they had hoped for, they can sometimes appeal the lower court’s decision to an appellate court to have the case reviewed. Most states, including Indiana, have three levels of courts: trial, intermediate appellate, and supreme. As the name implies, the trial court is where a trial takes place. If a party is not satisfied with a ruling, they may appeal to the intermediate appellate court. If that court finds against the party again, they can file another appeal in the state supreme court. In some very limited and specific circumstances, a party may be able to make one final appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

A court, however, will not hear any issue merely because a party was not satisfied with the ultimate result; there must be some legal issue that is the basis of the appeal. Often, these are evidentiary rulings made by the trial judge.

Trial judges are supposed to follow rules of evidence, which dictate what kinds of evidence are admissible at trial. If evidence that was not supposed to be considered by the jurors is put before the jury, that may result in reversible error. Similarly, if a judge prevents a party from admitting evidence that should have been admitted, that too can qualify as reversible error. However, a party almost always has to “preserve” the error by objecting when the adverse ruling is made.

Continue reading