1 \\server05\productn\j\jcl\17-3\jcl303.txt unknown Seq: 1 26-OCT-05 9:43 USING THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE DEFENSE IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN VIRGINIA Dennis J. Quinn* William E. Buchanan* All manufacturers must follow governmental regulations and industry safety standards, or run the risk that a court will make a finding of negligence per se against them in a products liability case. Such a finding is usually fatal to a manufacturer s defense. It has long been the case that a manufacturer s strict compliance with applicable product safety statutes and regulations acted as a shield only to a negligence per se finding. Compliance does not itself preclude a finding of product defect. However, recent Virginia case law suggests that a manufacturer may be able to use its strict compliance not only as a shield against a negligence per se finding, but also as a sword against a plaintiff to establish that its product is not unreasonably dangerous. Compliance can become a potential defense. The regulatory compliance defense asserts that if a manufacturer complies with the controlling governmental regulations or industry safety standards, then its product is not unreasonably dangerous. If the product is not unreasonably dangerous, plaintiff s products liability claim, under Virginia law, should fail. One argument in support of this defense is that if experts in the manufacturer s field determine that certain steps and measures are required to make a product safe, and those measures are followed by a manufacturer, they should not be second-guessed by nonexpert juries. 1 It is a simple, yet powerful argu- * Dennis J. Quinn is a member of the law firm of Carr Maloney P.C. and William E. Buchanan is an associate. Both Mr. Quinn and Mr. Buchanan are active members of the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys, and Mr. Quinn represents the Potomac Region on its board of directors. 1 See Grundberg v. Upjohn Co., 813 P.2d 89, 98 (Utah, 1991) ( [W]e do not believe that a trial court in the context of a products liability action is the proper forum to determine whether, as a whole, a particular prescription drug s benefits outweighed its risks at the time of distribution. In a case-by-case analysis, one court or jury s determination that a particular drug is or is not defectively designed has no bearing on any future case. As a result, differences of opinion among courts in differing jurisdictions leaves unsettled a drug manufacturer s liability for any given drug. Although the FDA may have internal differences of opinion regarding whether a particular new drug application should be approved, the individuals making the ultimate judgment will have the benefit of years of experience in reviewing such products, scientific expertise in the area, and access to the volumes of data they can compel manufacturers to produce. Nor is the FDA subject to the inherent limitations of the trial process, such as the rules of evidence, restrictions on expert testimony, and scheduling demands. ). JOURNAL OF CIVIL LITIGATION, VOL. XVII, NO. 3(FALL 2005) 249
2 \\server05\productn\j\jcl\17-3\jcl303.txt unknown Seq: 2 26-OCT-05 9: JOURNAL OF CIVIL LITIGATION, VOL. XVII, NO. 3 (FALL 2005) ment and one that should not be ignored by defense counsel. 2 This is but one of many policy arguments in favor of a regulatory compliance defense. 3 The regulatory compliance defense can be a very useful tool and one that is receiving greater recognition in Virginia, especially in the federal courts. What follows is a review of the standard for product liability in Virginia, recent decisions demonstrating a move toward greater acceptance of the regulatory compliance defense, and practice pointers to set the stage for effectively using the defense. I. THE STANDARD FOR PRODUCT LIABILITY IN VIRGINIA The standard of safety of goods imposed on the manufacturer of a product is essentially the same whether the theory of liability is labeled breach of warranty or negligence. The product must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is to be used. 4 In order to recover under either of these theories against the manufacturer of a product, a plaintiff must show (1) that the [product was] unreasonably dangerous either for the use to which [it] would ordinarily be put or for some other reasonably foreseeable purpose, and (2) that the unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the goods left the manufacturer s hands. 5 A plaintiff must also establish that the defect actually caused his injury. 6 A product is unreasonably dangerous if it is defective in assembly or manufacture, unreasonably dangerous in design, or unaccompanied by adequate warnings concerning its hazardous properties. 7 Whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is a question of fact. 8 2 Paul Dueffert, Note, The Role of Regulatory Compliance in Tort Actions, 26 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 175, (1989). ( Against such complex regulatory schemes, the rule that regulatory compliance cannot shield a defendant from liability seems archaic. ). 3 Critics urging a stronger regulatory compliance defense constitute part of a larger group of critics that in recent years has attacked the entire products liability system as too costly and erratic, as well as responsible for making insurance less affordable and less available for many products, dramatically increasing prices for some products, deterring innovation, slowing the development and marketing of products, unduly burdening interstate commerce, and reducing American competitiveness in the global marketplace. While these claims have been sharply disputed and the evidence to support them contested, critics of the current system have pressed, often successfully, for tort and products liability reforms to address their concerns. Proposed reforms have included an array of measures to limit damage awards and to establish legal standards that make claims more difficult to bring or to win. These proposed reforms often include a strengthened regulatory compliance defense as part of their package of reforms. Teresa Moran Schwartz, Regulatory Standards and Products Liability: Striking the Right Balance between the Two, 30 U. MICH. J.L. REF. 431, (1997) (citations omitted). 4 Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Gamble by Gamble, 256 Va. 144 (1998); Logan v. Montgomery Ward, 216 Va. 425, 428, 219 S.E.2d 685, 687 (1975). 5 Jeld-Wen, Inc., 256 Va. at 148 (quoting Morgen Indus., Inc. v. Vaughan, 252 Va. 60, 65, 471 S.E.2d 489, 492 (1996)). 6 Logan v. Montgomery Ward, 216 Va. 425, 428, 219 S.E.2d 685, 687 (1975); Marshall v. H.K. Ferguson Co., 623 F.2d 882, 885 (4th Cir. 1980). 7 Austin v. Clark Equip. Co., 48 F.3d 833, 836 (4th Cir. 1995); Bly v. Otis Elevator Co., 713 F.2d 1040, 1043 (4th Cir. 1983). 8 Singleton v. International Harvester Co., 685 F.2d 112, 115 (4th Cir. 1981).
3 \\server05\productn\j\jcl\17-3\jcl303.txt unknown Seq: 3 26-OCT-05 9:43 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE DEFENSE IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES 251 While a manufacturer may not be held liable for every misuse of its product, it may be held liable for a foreseeable misuse of an unreasonably dangerous product. 9 The standard does not require a manufacturer to supply an accident-proof product. 10 Common knowledge of a danger from the foreseeable misuse of a product does not alone give rise to a duty to safeguard against the danger of that misuse. To the contrary, the purpose of making the finding of a legal duty as a prerequisite to a finding of negligence, or breach of implied warranty, in products liability is to avoid the extension of liability for every conceivably foreseeable accident, without regard to common sense or good policy. 11 II. REGULATIONS AS THE STANDARD The Second Restatement of Torts states that compliance with a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation does not prevent a finding of negligence where a reasonable man would take additional precautions. 12 The comments to section 288 reveal that this theory is based on the assumption that regulations are the minimum requirements. 13 The Third Restatement of Torts goes further in stating that a product s compliance with an applicable product safety statute or administrative regulation is properly considered in determining whether the product is defective with respect to the risks sought to be reduced by the statute or regulation. 14 While the Third Restatement does not go so far as to say that meeting the requirements is an absolute defense, it does show how the pendulum may be swinging in favor of the regulatory-compliant manufacturer. 15 Federal courts in Virginia have begun to embrace this argument. In Alevromagiros v. Hechinger Co., the Fourth Circuit held that while conformity with industry custom does not absolve a manufacturer or seller of a product from liability, such compliance may be conclusive when there is no evidence to show that the product was not reasonably safe. 16 In Hechinger, the court directed a verdict in favor of the manufacturer after plaintiff failed to establish the 9 Featherall v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 219 Va. 949, 964, 252 S.E.2d 358, 367 (1979); Sloan v. General Motors Corp., 249 Va. 520, 526, 457 S.E.2d 51, 54 (1995). 10 Besser Co. v. Hansen, 243 Va. 267, 276, 415 S.E.2d 138, 144 (1992). 11 Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Gamble by Gamble, 256 Va. 144, 149 (1998). 12 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS Where a statute, ordinance or regulation is found to define a standard of conduct for the purposes of negligence actions, as stated in 285 and 286, the standard defined is normally a minimum standard, applicable to the ordinary situations contemplated by the legislation. This legislative or administrative minimum does not prevent a finding that a reasonable man would have taken additional precautions where the situation is such as to call for them. Comments, RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY Lorenz v. Celotex Corp, 896 F.2d 148, 151 (5th Cir. 1990), reh g denied, 901 F.2d 1110 (5th Cir. 1990) (compliance with governmental safety standards is strong and substantial evidence that a product is not defective); see also Ashley W. Warren, Compliance with Governmental Regulatory Standards: Is It Enough to Immunize a Defendant from Tort Liability? 49 BAYLOR L. REV. 763 (1997) F.2d 417, (4th Cir. 1993).
4 \\server05\productn\j\jcl\17-3\jcl303.txt unknown Seq: 4 26-OCT-05 9: JOURNAL OF CIVIL LITIGATION, VOL. XVII, NO. 3 (FALL 2005) product violated any standard. Plaintiff s expert never performed physical tests to determine whether the product, in this case a ladder, conformed to the published industry standards. Moreover, he testified to no customs of the trade, referred to no literature in the field, and did not identify the reasonable expectations of consumers. A plaintiff may not prevail in a products liability case by relying on the opinion of an expert unsupported by any evidence such as test data or relevant literature in the field. 17 In Mears v. General Motors Co., 18 the plaintiff sued an auto manufacturer alleging that a defect in the breaking system caused her auto accident. Plaintiff alleged that her truck was unreasonably dangerous because it used a single hydraulic brake system rather than a safer split-hydraulic system. The court granted defendant s motion for summary judgment finding that the breaking system complied with industry standards that existed at the time of manufacture. While conformity with industry practice is not conclusive of the product s safety, because an industry could adopt a careless standard, the cases where a member of an industry will be held liable for failing to do what no one in his position has ever done before will be infrequent. 19 In Lemons v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., the court held absent proof of a violation of a governmental, industrial, or safety standard, plaintiff is required to offer evidence as to actual industry practices, knowledge at the time of other injuries, knowledge of dangers, published literature, and... direct evidence of what reasonable purchasers consider defective. 20 In Virginia, the mere fact of an accident is not enough to establish the existence of a defect. 21 Virginia has rejected the evidentiary presumption of res ipsa loquitur in products liability cases. 22 In Wilder v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 23 the Fourth Circuit upheld the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia decision s granting summary judgment in favor of Toyota. In this case, plaintiff alleged he suffered injury as a result of a defective air bag in his vehicle, which he claimed deployed late. Toyota presented an affidavit from its experts that the air bag system on the Tacoma truck was well designed, well tested, consistent with industry custom, and not defective. The court found that while conformity with industry custom does not absolve a manufacturer or seller of a product from 17 Id. at F. Supp. 548, (E.D. Va. 1995). 19 Id. at 552 (quoting Sexton v. Bell Helmets, Inc., 926 F.2d 331, 337 (4th Cir.) (applying Kentucky law), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 820, 116 L. Ed. 2d 52, 112 S. Ct. 79 (1991) (quoting W. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts 33, at 167 (4th ed. 1971)) F. Supp. 328, (W.D. Va. 1995) (citing Alevromagiros, 993 F.2d at ). 21 Logan v. Montgomery Ward, 219 S.E.2d 685, 688 (1975). 22 Id Fed. Appx. 155, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26787, 2001 WL , (4th Cir. 2001).
5 \\server05\productn\j\jcl\17-3\jcl303.txt unknown Seq: 5 26-OCT-05 9:43 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE DEFENSE IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES 253 liability, such compliance may be conclusive when there is no evidence to show that the product was not reasonably safe. 24 In McAlpin v. Electric Furnace Co., 25 the court held that in determining what constitutes an unreasonably dangerous defect, a court will consider safety standards promulgated by the relevant industry, as well as the reasonable expectations of consumers. 26 In McAlpin, decedent was killed when a stove exploded. The decedent s representative filed suit against the manufacturer, alleging that the stove was inherently dangerous. The court granted defendant s motion for summary judgment, finding that the stove did not deviate from industry standards and that it did meet the expectations of consumers. 27 These cases demonstrate that plaintiffs cannot rely simply on the subjective opinions of their experts. We are unprepared to agree that it is so if an expert says it is so. 28 These decisions make clear that the bar has been raised for plaintiff to win against a regulatory-compliant manufacturer. III. PRACTICE POINTERS A. REMOVE THE CASE TO FEDERAL COURT All of the above-cited cases are federal cases applying Virginia law. Federal courts in Virginia are more likely than state courts to grant summary judgment or directed verdicts. Because of this, federal courts are also more likely to grant summary judgment or directed verdicts based on the regulatory compliance defense. In products liability cases, the manufacturer is frequently located in a different state from the plaintiff s, so removing the state case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction is an option counsel for a manufacturer should always consider. B. KNOW THE REGULATIONS When representing manufacturers, attorneys should become intimately familiar with the regulations and industry standards that apply to their client s product. Counsel should first consult with their client about all relevant regulations. Counsel should also conduct independent research and consult experts in the appropriate fields. A product can be defective only if it is imperfect when measured against a standard existing at the time of sale or against reasonable consumer expecta- 24 Id. at U.S. Dist. LEXIS (1996). 26 Id. (citing Alevromagiros, 993 F.2d at 420 (citing Sexton v. Bell Helmets, Inc., 926 F.2d 331, 337 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 820, 112 S. Ct. 79, 116 L. Ed. 2d 52 (1991))). 27 Canterbury v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3893 (4th Cir., 1991) (citing Lorenz v. Celotex Corp, 896 F.2d 148 (5th Cir. 1990), reh g denied, 901 F.2d 1110 (5th Cir. 1990); Farrell v. Klein Tools, Inc., 866 F.2d 1294 (10th Cir. 1989)). 28 Alevromagiros, 993 F.2d at 421 (quoting Viterbo v. Dow Chem. Co., 826 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1987)).
6 \\server05\productn\j\jcl\17-3\jcl303.txt unknown Seq: 6 26-OCT-05 9: JOURNAL OF CIVIL LITIGATION, VOL. XVII, NO. 3 (FALL 2005) tions held at the time of sale. 29 Because of this, counsel should be familiar with the regulations, and in addition, learn the consumer expectations held at the time of sale. The level of consumer expectations can be established through evidence of actual industry practices, published literature, and from direct evidence of what reasonable purchasers considered defective. Id. Counsel should obtain literature that sets forth the standards at the time of the sale and not today s standards. C. LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION THROUGH DISCOVERY Defense counsel should establish the regulatory compliance defense early in the litigation through discovery. Defense counsel should prepare interrogatories, document requests, and possibly requests for admissions concerning governmental regulations or industry standards that plaintiff alleges the manufacturer violated. Counsel should also be prepared to question plaintiff s expert on compliance issues. The goal for counsel is to obtain testimony from plaintiff s expert that regulations and industry standards were not violated. Another category of questions that counsel should include in his questions for plaintiff s expert is consumer expectations. Information regarding consumer expectations at the time of sale is often hard to obtain. It is equally hard for plaintiff to obtain. Therefore, defense counsel should cover in detail all evidence relied upon by plaintiff s expert to establish this. These steps are designed to establish a summary judgment argument on the regulatory compliance defense. D. GET A FAVORABLE JURY INSTRUCTION In an asbestos case in Texas, defense counsel for the manufacturer was able to secure a very favorable jury instruction. 30 At the close of the evidence, the district court, upon Celotex s request, instructed the jury that: Compliance with government safety standards constitutes strong and substantial evidence that a product is not defective. 31 Celotex did two things that allowed for such a favorable ruling. First, it set forth the applicable standard. Second, it demonstrated that it had met the standard. Celotex presented evidence that until the end of the 1960s, exposure to asbestos dust counts below five million particles per cubic foot was generally considered safe. Celotex then presented evidence that use of Celotex s products produced dust counts below the threshold limit. Celotex introduced the results of several studies of asbestos exposure among insulation workers. In each case, 29 Mears v. General Motors Corp., 896 F. Supp. 548 (1995). 30 Lorenz v. Celotex Corp., 896 F.2d 148 (5th Cir., 1990), reh g denied, 901 F.2d 1110 (5th Cir. 1990). 31 The language of this instruction comes directly from Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 761 F.2d 1129, 1144 (5th Cir. 1985). Compliance with such government safety standards constitutes strong and substantial evidence that a product is not defective. Id.
7 \\server05\productn\j\jcl\17-3\jcl303.txt unknown Seq: 7 26-OCT-05 9:43 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE DEFENSE IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES 255 the study concluded that exposure levels were below the five million particles per cubic foot threshold. While no Texas state decision set forth the proposition that compliance with government safety standards constitutes strong and substantial evidence that a product is not defective, none contradicted this statement, either. 32 Because the instruction was substantively correct and was supported by the evidence, the trial court did not err in giving it. It is well settled that the jury should be instructed on a legal theory if the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to justify such an instruction. 33 Defense counsel first must establish through evidence the relevant standard and establish that standard has been met. After this has been done, counsel should then craft and submit a Lorenz-like jury instruction applicable to their case using relevant Virginia case law. IV. CONCLUSION Regulatory compliance should no longer be viewed by defense counsel as simply a minimum requirement their client needs to satisfy to avoid a negligence per se finding against them. Current regulations are becoming so sophisticated that manufacturers compliance with them should no longer be a starting point for the court to evaluate whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. Rather, defense counsel should use their clients compliance with the relevant governmental regulations or industry safety standards as a weapon against plaintiff s products liability claim. The crafting and use of that weapon should begin early in the discovery phase of litigation, and should continue through dispositive motions and certainly in jury instructions. While Virginia does not currently allow compliance alone to preclude, as a matter of law, a finding of product defect, there is some movement in that direction. Defense counsel in products liability litigation should become aware of the relevant case law and the policy arguments behind the decisions, and use these arguments to their clients advantage. 32 See Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 761 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1985), and Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp., 765 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1985). Both Gideon and Dartez were diversity cases applying Texas law, and in both cases the court determined that compliance with governmental safety standards is strong and substantial evidence that a product is not defective. 33 Lorenz v. Celotex Corp., 896 F.2d 148, , reh g denied, 901 F.2d 1110 (5th Cir. 1990).
Introduction The RAJI (CIVIL) 5th Product Liability Instructions refer only to manufacturers and sellers. These instructions should be expanded when appropriate to include others in the business of placing
PRODUCT LIABILITY Product Liability Litigation The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance By Kenneth Ross Product liability litigation and product safety regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JASON LONG, Plaintiff, v. NO. 0:00-CV-000 ABC THE CHABON GROUP, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO By Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 I. OVERVIEW OF PUERTO RICO LEGAL SYSTEM A. Three branches of government B. Judicial Branch 1. Supreme
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND Introduction The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to concepts used in the defense of construction related lawsuits and to suggest how
Agents E&O Standard of Care Project Survey Maryland To gain a deeper understanding of the differing agent duties and standard of care by state, the Big I Professional Liability Program and Swiss Re Corporate
Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states
Case 1:11-cv-02026-SCJ Document 118 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION EDWARD BRANDON NOE, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION No. 1:11-cv-02026-SCJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Kimlyn Cline Plaintiff, v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-62 (TJW) MEMORANDUM
PASSIVE SELLER IMMUNITY FROM PRODUCT LIABILITY ACTIONS House Bill 4 significantly impacted most areas of Texas Tort Law. In the traditional products liability arena, tort reform affected three major changes:
Defenses in a Product Liability Claim written by: Mark Schultz, Esq. COZEN O CONNOR Suite 400, 200 Four Falls Corporate Center West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (800) 379-0695 (610) 941-5400 email@example.com
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 firstname.lastname@example.org Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff
2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-14271 HON.
The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action
Key Concept 4: Understanding Product Liability Law Suppose that you are the president of a firm making products for sale to the public. One of your worries would be the company's exposure to civil liability
Case 2:08-cv-01740-MLCF-DEK Document 37 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ARTHUR MONTEGUT, SR. CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 08-1740 BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, email@example.com
Product Liability Recalls on the Rise: Legal Strategies Texas... and Beyond Larry D. Grayson and Pryce G. Tucker Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP 6688 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75206
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE David V. Scott Nelson D. Alexander Indiana Legal Foundation, Inc. New Albany, Indiana Kevin C. Schiferl Peter J. Rusthoven Maggie
Case: 5:14-cv-00136-DCR-REW Doc #: 138 Filed: 04/15/15 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington GEORGE VINCENT VAUGHN, Plaintiff,
But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from
Case 1:08-cv-00225-EJL-CWD Document 34 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, Case No.
According to Andrew Schirrmeister, plaintiffs lawyers specializing in toxic tort litigation are scrambling. On June 8, 2007, in Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 1 the Texas Supreme Court issued a significant
Products Liability: Putting a Product on the U.S. Market Natalia R. Medley Crowell & Moring LLP 14 November 2012 Overview Regulation of Products» Federal agencies» State laws Product Liability Lawsuits»
Choice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims By David T. Biderman and Judith B. Gitterman Choice of law questions in asbestos litigation can be highly complex. The court determining choice of law must often
Case 3:12-cv-01348-HZ Document 32 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 144 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KELLY J. YOX, an individual, v. Plaintiff, No.
LEGAL ISSUES Why should I learn about legal issues? School administrators are typically the only personnel to receive training in classroom liability issues, yet teachers have the most responsibility for
Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge Insurance and Reinsurance Review - September 2010 Marc S. Voses Choice of law issues cannot be overlooked in insurance bad faith litigation,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2008-CA-00966-COA DEANNA J. ROWAN AND GARY ROWAN APPELLANTS v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. AND PAT PECK NISSAN, INC. APPELLEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/2008
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
When does an insured forfeit coverage under a professional liability, fiduciary liability, or Directors and Officers Liability ( D&O ) insurance policy by settling a lawsuit without first obtaining its
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EVIDENTIARY RULES APPLICABLE TO PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: OTHER SIMILAR INCIDENTS By Lee Wallace The Wallace Law Firm, L.L.C. 2170 Defoor Hills Rd. Atlanta, Georgia 30318 404-814-0465
Event Data Recorders and Their Role in Automobile Accident Litigation by Jason A. Koch firstname.lastname@example.org 8519 Eagle Point Boulevard, Suite 100 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042-8624 (651) 290-6500 I. Event Data
April, 2003 No. 3 Toxic and Hazardous Substances Litigation In This Issue Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr. is a founding partner of Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore a New Orleans, Louisiana firm that is focused
Case 2:04-cv-00026-JES-DNF Document 471 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION MARCO ISLAND CABLE, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff,
Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0425 444444444444 PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS, INC., PETITIONER, v. BILL HEAD D/B/A BILL HEAD ENTERPRISES AND TITEFLEX CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BOBBY FLOYD AND CONSOLIDATED UNDER BARBARA FLOYD, MOL 875 Plaintiffs, Transferred from the Northern District of v. California
Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,
Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. WILLIAM P. RASCHER OPINION BY v. Record No. 090193 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 25, 2010 CATHLEEN
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
Affirmed and Opinion filed February 7, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-01144-CV ANTONIO GARCIA, JR., Appellant V. PALESTINE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, n/k/a MEMORIAL MOTHER FRANCES HOSPITAL,
Case 2:06-cv-10929-LMA-DEK Document 23 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOYCE HAMPTON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION versus No. 06-10929 OWENS-ILLINOIS, ET AL.
SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2013. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION In re: Joseph Walter Melara and Shyrell Lynn Melara, Case No.
Property Insurance By: Michael S. Sherman Chuhak & Tecson P.C. Chicago Extra-Contractual Damages Against Insurers: What is the Statute of Limitations? Background The Illinois Legislature has provided a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
Wolfe v McNeil-PPC, Inc. A current application of the failure-to-warn doctrine. By Charles J. Crooks, Esquire, a member of Jackson Kelly PLLC For: Law360 s May 2011 Product Liability Guest Column New products
Case 2:10-cv-00802-CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION MURIELLE MOLIERE, Plaintiff, v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants.
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a
CASE 0:10-cv-01132-MJD-FLN Document 106 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Mirapex Products Liability Litigation 07-MD-1836 (MJD/FLN) This document relates
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JOYCE FULLINGTON PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:10CV00236 JLH PLIVA, INC., formerly known as Pliva USA, Inc.; and MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL
Chapter 99B. Products Liability. 99B-1. Definitions. When used in this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Claimant" means a person or other entity asserting a claim and, if said claim
NEGLIGENCE PER SE Richard B. Kilpatrick* I. INTRODUCTION The Tort Reform Act of 1986 includes several sections under Part IX denominated Miscellaneous. The first of these miscellaneous sections is Section
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
Case 5:05-cv-00202-FPS-JES Document 353 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW: COMPARING THE APPROACH IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON By Bruce C. Hamlin John R. Barhoum Lane Powell PC Portland, This article appeared in the Spring 2005 issue of the State Bar's Products
Case 2:08-cv-83111-ER Document 55 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA REGINALD DENT : CONSOLIDATED : MDL 875 v. : : EDPA CIVIL ACTION
Case 1:06-cv-00429-ACK-BMK Document 110 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 3465 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, CHARO
Failure Breach Case 2:12-cv-07317-JLL-JAD Document 34 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New Jersey CHAMBERS OF MARTIN LUTHER KiNG JR. JOSE 1. LINARES FEDERAL
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOUG HAMBELTON, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CANAL
Case 4:05-cv-00008-JAJ-RAW Document 80 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION EARL A. POWELL, In the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit DEC 8 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk RICHARD E. MYERS; SARAH MYERS, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, COUNTRY
If you have questions regarding Product Liability, please contact Bruce Schoumacher via email@example.com www.querrey.com 2012 Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. All rights reserved. B. PRODUCT LIABILITY ILLINOIS
Case 4:03-cv-00624-Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1822 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION GOD'S CHARIOT, L.P. VS. ACTION NO. 4:03-CV-624-Y
Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD
CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENTS: LANDOWNER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER LIABILITY REVISITED In the recent case of Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 911 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2006) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Product Liability By: James W. Ozog Wiedner & McAuliffe, Ltd Chicago. Product Liability and Conflict of Laws Townsend v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. 1-05-4045, 2006 WL 3228815 (1 st Dist., November 8, 2006.)
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.