Day on TortsThe Plaintiffs’ proof is about over, and the jury has been permitted to ask questions. To read about the current status of this important case, click here.
Articles Posted in Products Liability
Ford Truck Roof Crush Verdict
A jury in South Texas returned a jury verdict against Ford yesterday.
A teenager died when the truck rolled over and the roof crushed. The truck was forced off the road by the actions of another driver. That driver was also apportioned fault in the incident. Ford was given 90% of the fault.
Plaintiffs introduced testing that demonstrated when the truck was dropped from a height of nine inches the roof crushed down to the headrest.
Vioxx Trial Update
Here is the most recent news on the Vioxx trial currently underway in New Jersey.
The author clearly does not understand the law of directed verdict.
Medical Monitoring
When you can’t prove a current injury but can prove that, because of the fault of another, you need to be regularly followed by a health care provider you seek damages for “medical monitoring.” The claim arises is toxic tort and products liability cases.
In a case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Tennessee law would recognize a cause of action for medical monitoring. The court said “there is something to be said for disease prevention, as opposed to disease treatment. Waiting for a plaintiff to suffer physical injury before allowing any redress whatsoever is both overly harsh and economically inefficient.” (Emphasis supplied). The case, Sutton v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., was brought as a class action on behalf of a proposed class of persons who underwent cardiac by[ass surgery using a medical device called the Symmetry Bypass System Connector.
Read more here.
Absence of Other Incidents
A defendant in a product liability case cannot introduce proof of the absence of other claims unless strict guidelines are met, according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The plaintiff’s lawyer “argued that there was no foundation for such testimony because [defendant’s] engineer had admitted in his deposition that [it] kept no records relating to either safety complaints by [its] customers or past accidents involving [the product involved in the incident].”
Judge Smith said “Most courts admitting evidence of the absence of prior accidents in product liability cases have done so only where the testifying witness, usually an employee of the product manufacturer, has testified that (a) a significant number of substantially identical products have been used in similar circumstances over a period of time; (b) the witness would likely be aware of prior accidents involving these products; and (c) to the witness’s knowledge, no such prior accidents have occurred.” Judgment in favor of the defendant was reversed.
Certain Minivans Don’t Perform Well in Crash Testing
A recent article reports that certain minivans get a failing grade in crash tests designed to check likelihood of neck injuries in rear-end collisions.
“Earning poor overall ratings were seven models subjected to a simulated crash: versions of the 2004-2006 model years of the Dodge Grand Caravan and its corporate twin, the Chrysler Town & Country; a version of the 2005-2006 Toyota Sienna; and four General Motors Corp. minivans from the 2005-2006 model years – the Chevrolet Uplander, Buick Terraza, Pontiac Montana SV6 and Saturn Relay.”
Vioxx Trial – New Jersey
Read this nice article about Chris Seeger, lead trial counsel in the New Jersey Vioxx trial. I have known Chris for 10 years or so – he is a great guy with a passion for what he does. He will give Merck one heck of a fight.
New Jersey Vioxx Trial
Vioxx vs Patients – Round 2. Venue: NJ
The trial is underway, and the defense has already violated the Judge’s order not to attack the plaintiffs’ lawyers. They spent alot of time attacking Mark Lanier in round one, and it worked so well there I guess they thought they should try it again.
This has become a tactic of some defense lawyers in recent history. Seizing on the dislike of lawyers, some defense lawyers wrap themselves up in the corporate (or doctor) flag and try the lawyers rather than (or in addition to) trying the case. It happened to me in a trial in December.
Lyin’ and Cheatin’ in Discovery: Chili Seller Gives the Finger to the Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants
Anna Ayala ain’t got nothin’ on these folks. You remember Anna – she gave Wendy’s the finger – in a bowl of chili – and then said that Wendy’s gave it to her. She is going to prison.
Now, a food supplier – of chili – has given the finger to the court system. Their current problem: a bunch of people have grabbed that finger and are about to twist it off.
This article from the Houston Chronicle is a horror story about discovery abuse. Fifteen people got sick and ten were hospitalized after eating from tubs of chili con carne. Litigation followed. Read this excerpt to learn about the discovery issue:
Guidant Corp – What did the FDA Know and When Did It Know It?
As reported here early earlier, Guidant has a problem with some of its defibrillators and has know about it for over three years. Now, it appears that it disclosed at least a part of what it knew to the FDA in February but the FDA did not act until June.
The New York Times just got the report under a FOIA request – a request orginally rejected by the FDA.
Read more here. For my other posts on this subject click here and here.