Products Liability

June 22, 2018

Expert Witnesses in Maryland Personal Injury Cases

Some Maryland personal injury cases present simple issues that are within the common understanding of the jurors. However, other cases present complex scientific or medical issues that may require the presentation of an expert witness who is familiar with that particular area.

It is important for Maryland personal injury plaintiffs to understand the law governing when an expert is necessary and the procedural requirements that arise when a party intends on calling an expert witness. A recent appellate opinion illustrates the consequences of not fully complying with the procedural rules pertaining to expert witnesses.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff asked her doctor to implant an intrauterine device (IUD) in her uterus as a long-term birth-control option. The plaintiff’s doctor agreed, and implanted the device in 2013.

February 8, 2018

Maryland Failure-to-Warn Strict Liability Cases

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

When a manufacturer markets a product to the public, it is expected that the statements made by the manufacturer are at least based on truth. While it is true that the law does allow for manufacturers to exaggerate, or “puff,” some claims regarding a product’s effectiveness, when it comes to matters of safety, all statements made must be true. In fact, a manufacturer’s failure to adequately warn of safety risks may be the basis of a Maryland product liability lawsuit. This is because, under Maryland law, a defective or non-existent warning is considered a product defect.

Maryland law subscribes to the “strict liability” method when determining liability under a failure-to-warn analysis. This means that, regardless of a company’s knowledge or negligence, the company can still be liable for injuries that were caused by the company’s failure to warn consumers of a product’s dangerousness.

Recent Study Suggest E-Cigarettes May Not Be a Safe Alternative to Smoking

As the dangers involved with smoking cigarettes have become more known and appreciated among all ages and demographics in the United States, more and more people are shifting to e-cigarettes because they have been marketed as a safer alternative to smoking. However, earlier this year, a team of researchers based out of New York University’s School of Medicine released a study uncovering some potential health risks of e-cigarette use – or “vaping.”

November 7, 2016

Verdicts Against Johnson & Johnson Raise Questions about the Risks of Baby Powder Use

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recent cases in the past year have resulted in several significant awards for plaintiffs who have developed ovarian cancer after using baby powder, increasing the question of risks surrounding the use of the product. Many baby powders are made with talcum powder, which is created from crushed talc, a mineral. Talcum powder absorbs moisture and is used in baby powder for that reason.

Generally, litigation has arisen from women who regularly used talcum powder in their genital area and developed ovarian cancer. Studies have shown different results, and there is no consensus on whether talc increases the risk of ovarian cancer. However, different studies over the years have raised serious concerns for consumers. One study found particles of talc embedded in ovarian and cervical tumors, leading to questions of a connection. One more recent study found a 44 percent increased risk of ovarian cancer among African-American women. The International Agency for Research on Cancer says that genital use of talc-based body powder is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Two lawsuits earlier this year resulted in high jury verdicts against the company. One woman was awarded $55 million, and the other was awarded $72 million. And in a recent case, another woman was awarded over $70 million.

October 24, 2016

Product Liability Plaintiffs’ Case Dismissed Based on Lack of Admissible Expert Testimony

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a product liability case against Kia Motor Corporation (Kia), based on the fact that the plaintiff presented no admissible expert testimony to meet the required elements. In the case, Sims v. Kia Motors of America, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the plaintiffs’ experts were unreliable, and thus their testimony was inadmissible. The court held that without the expert testimony, the plaintiffs were unable to prove their case, and it was properly dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

Sims was a backseat passenger in a 2010 Kia Soul. The driver of the Soul was involved in an accident that caused the vehicle to spin, colliding with several objects. At some point, the Soul collided with the immovable base of a “yield” sign. As the vehicle came in contact with the base of the sign, it sliced through the front bumper and pierced the gas tank. The vehicle began to leak gas.

The driver and front passenger were able to escape the car through their respective doors. However, the backseat passengers were unable to exit the vehicle because the rear doors were jammed. Shortly after the collision, the car went up in flames. Sims perished in the fire.

September 19, 2016

Family Loses Lawsuit and Subsequent Appeal in Case Against Smoke Detector Manufacturer

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a recent case in front of a state appellate court, a jury’s verdict in favor of a manufacturer of an allegedly defective smoke detector was affirmed, leaving the plaintiffs with no means of recourse. In the case, Hosford v. BRK Brands, the plaintiffs’ allegations were all based on various product liability themes, but since the plaintiffs failed to present the necessary evidence at trial and on appeal, the case was lost.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the surviving family members of a nine-year-old girl who perished when the family’s mobile home caught fire. Several of the family members were in one room when the fire started. The young girl was in a separate room. After a slow, smoldering fire started as a result of an electrical malfunction, two of the alarms that had been installed in the mobile home went off, alerting the family. Since the fire had already started to spread by the time the alarm went off, the family was not able to rescue the nine-year-old girl.

The surviving family members filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the smoke detector, arguing that the detector’s technology was insufficient to give early warnings of slow, smoldering fires rather than a faster, hotter fire. There were several related claims filed by the plaintiffs, all making various arguments under a product liability theory, such as failure to warn, defective design, negligence, and breach of warranty.

August 8, 2016

Court Considers Available Optional Equipment in Product Liability Case

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Under a product liability theory, manufacturers can be held liable for dangerous products that they release into the stream of commerce. However, not only can manufacturers be held liable, but also retailers and distributors may be held liable under certain circumstances. When a court considers a product liability case, there are several factors that may come into play, as was evidenced by a recent case in front of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Parks v. Ariens: The Facts

Parks was fatally injured when the riding lawnmower he was operating rolled while Parks was negotiating a sloped surface. Parks’ wife then filed a product liability case against the dealer who had sold her husband the lawnmower, arguing that the dealer was negligent in failing to supply the mower with a roll cage and seatbelt.

The defendant answered the claim by explaining that it was not his duty to supply the roll cage and seatbelt. Indeed, the defendant presented evidence that it was his normal practice to ask customers if they want to purchase the roll cage and seatbelt as optional equipment at an additional cost. While there was no documentation that Parks turned down this offer, the dealer explained that it was his normal practice to explain this to his customers, and he could not recall anything different occurring in this case.

August 1, 2016

Latest Court Decision in GM Ignition Switch Saga May Benefit Some Accident Victims

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Over the course of the last few years, General Motors has recalled over 26 million vehicles, spanning over 55 models. This series of recalls, the largest in U.S. history, covers all but three of GM’s main vehicle models. Many of the vehicles that were recalled had serious problems with the ignition switch. Indeed, it is difficult to gauge exactly how many deaths have been caused by the ignition switch problem, but by most estimates the number is well over 100.

What makes this recall extraordinary is not just the volume of vehicles recalled but also the fact that there is evidence suggesting GM knew about the dangers of the ignition switches but failed to do anything. This has led to a series of personal injury cases that, according to GM’s own estimates, will cost the company about $2.5 billion. It cost the company so much, in fact, that GM actually entered a form of bankruptcy.

According to a recent news article covering the bankruptcy, under an appellate court’s decision, accident victims’ claims against the “new” GM may be viable despite GM’s assertion that the claims dissolved along with the “old” GM. The court had to decide several important questions of law, just one of which was: what happens to the claims filed by all those people who were injured by faulty ignition switches? Should those claims be dismissed because the corporation that manufactured the vehicle is technically no longer in existence? Or should the claims be able to be asserted against the new GM corporation?

July 19, 2016

Appellate Court Determines Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objection Below “Speculative” on Final Outcome, Affirms Defense Verdict

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court in California affirmed a lower court’s decision in a product liability case involving an allegedly defective door-knob guard that the plaintiffs claimed was responsible for their young son’s death. In the case, Coterel v. Dorel Juvenile Group, the court determined that even if the plaintiffs were correct, and the challenged evidence should not have been submitted to the jury, the effect of including the evidence had only a speculative effect, and reversal was not therefore required.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant manufactured a door-knob cover marketed to parents of young children who are tall enough to reach door knobs but may not know better than to open the door and walk out of the house. On the day in question, the plaintiffs placed the defendant’s door-knob cover on the front door of their home and placed their young son in bed in his crib. Evidently, the young boy escaped his crib, approached the front door, negotiated the door knob cover, and then walked out the front door of the house. Tragically, the boy was later found dead in a pond.

The parents of the boy filed a product liability case against the manufacturer of the cover, alleging that the product was defective. At trial, the defendant presented evidence that the parents knew their son had been able to negotiate the cover, and they had installed a chain lock on the door as well. However, on the day in question, the plaintiffs failed to use the chain lock.

March 1, 2016

Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $72 Million Award Based on Product Liability Lawsuit over Talcum Powder

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, health care products giant Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay out roughly $72 million to one woman over allegations that the company’s talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer. According to one local news source reporting on the case, the case relied not just on the fact that Johnson & Johnson’s product caused the woman’s cancer but also on the fact that the company failed to warn customers of known risks associated with the product.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case were the family members of a woman who had used Johnson & Johnson’s “Shower to Shower” brand talcum powder for decades. The powder was marketed back in the 1970s as a safe feminine-hygiene product. However, there was evidence submitted at trial suggesting that Johnson & Johnson was aware of research indicating that the powder was not as safe as it was marketed to be. This decisive evidence was in the form of internal Johnson & Johnson documents.

Johnson & Johnson lawyers argued that there was no proof that the woman’s cancer was caused by the use of the company’s product. However, the jury rejected that argument and awarded the woman’s family roughly $72 million – an amount far-and-beyond the $22 million requested by the family.

April 8, 2015

Listeria Fears Prompt Several Organic Food Companies To Issue Recalls

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

The recent listeria outbreak has been making national news over the past several weeks. According to a prominent news source, some leading organic food companies have had to issue recalls for some of their packaged foods. One organic food company had to recall almost 75,000 cases of frozen food because they possibly contained contaminated spinach.

Listeria is a disease that can result in extreme illness and in some cases even death. Young children, the elderly, and those who have a weakened immune system are particularly prone to developing a serious case of the disease. Some of the common initial symptoms of listeria include diarrhea, nausea, headache, and stiffness. Often, listeria goes undiagnosed because the initial symptoms mirror the flu. Pregnant women also face a danger of miscarriage and stillbirth if they contract the disease.

Some common items that have been recalled in this most recent outbreak are various types of tofus, pasta shells, spinach pizza, brown rice and vegetable bowls, and other frozen dishes made by these companies. Sadly, five people have developed listeria after eating contaminated food, and three of those individuals have died as a result.