Where a child’s booster seat was only dangerous because it was used in conjunction with an aftermarket seat belt extender, the booster seat manufacturer had no duty to warn purchasers of that potential danger under Tennessee products liability law. In Woodruff v. Ford Motor Company, No. E2023-00488-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App.…
Because a seat belt connector was safe for its intended use when it left the manufacturer, the manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s failure to warn claim. In Woodruff v. Ford Motor Company, No. E2023-00889-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2024), plaintiff’s husband was killed and her children…
Where plaintiff filed a products liability claim based on a hip replacement device she had received, but her hip replacement occurred more than ten years before her suit was filed, dismissal based on the statute of repose was affirmed. In Jones v. Smith & Nephew Inc., No. W2021-00426-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL…
Where there were genuine issues of material fact in a products liability case filed against the manufacturer and seller of an ATV, summary judgment for defendants was reversed. In Vaulton v. Polaris Industries, Inc., No. E2021-00489-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 628502 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2022), plaintiffs filed this product liability…
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that product liability defendants “cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from products they did not make, distribute, or sell.” In Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., No. E2017-01985-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Jan. 4, 2021), plaintiff was the wife of a deceased employee of a chemical plant.…
Under what circumstances can a product manufacturer be hauled into state court to defend a products liability claim when the injury occurred in that state ? Or, as put by Ford Motor Company in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court: Whether the “arise out of or relate…
In an asbestos case, a balancing test should have been used to determine whether manufacturers “had a duty to warn about the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing products manufactured and sold by others.” Further, expert testimony regarding the effects of asbestos exposure on a plaintiff did not have to be based…
Tennessee products liability claims are subject to a ten-year statute of repose, and that limitation period is not subject to equitable estoppel. In Ismoilov v. Sears Holdings Corporation, No. M2017-00897-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2018), plaintiff brought a products liability suit based on a water heater that broke, causing…
In Stockton v. Ford Motor Co., No. W2016-01175-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), the Court of Appeals vacated a jury verdict in a Tennessee products liability case due to a defective jury verdict form. Plaintiff was the wife of an auto mechanic who owned his own shop. Husband worked…
The United States Supreme Court recently analyzed a federal court’s “inherent authority to sanction bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side’s legal fees,” holding that such an award was “limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct.” In Goodyear Tire &…