Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New...more
The United States Supreme Court first recognized products liability, including strict liability, as part of the general maritime law in East River Steamship S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986). The...more
The number of cases involving so-called “nuclear verdicts” — that is, verdicts with awards of $10 million or more — have risen sharply, and many of those cases concern product liability claims. For large corporations, such...more
In Pelton v Maytag, 2024 ONSC 3016 (“Pelton”) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) ruled that the defendant manufacturers were not liable for failing to warn consumers that the product could fail because of a...more
Crafting the perfect medical device is never an exact science—but a patient should never suffer because of defects in a product that was intended to improve their quality of life. Determining whether a device manufacturer or...more
The Michigan Senate recently passed a bill to repeal a long-standing state law immunizing pharmaceutical manufacturers and sellers from product liability suits where the pharmaceutical products were approved by the U.S. Food...more
Key Takeaway: In Superior Oil Company, Inc. v. Labno-Fritchley, 207 N.E.3d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of summary judgment in a product liability case. The court...more
New York’s Appellate Division, First Department recently issued favorable dismissals to a sporting goods retailer and manufacturer in a case alleging issues with an elastic exercise band that injured a person’s right eye in a...more
The City of Baltimore, Maryland, filed a November 21st Complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against five cigarette manufacturers and a distributor in regard to alleged losses/costs associated with tobacco product...more
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, October 21, 2022 - In this case, the plaintiffs Arnold and Ruth Pritt allege that Arnold Pritt (“Plaintiff”) was exposed to asbestos while serving in the...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, July 8, 2022 - In this asbestos matter, the defendant ViacomCBS Inc. (“Westinghouse”) moved for partial summary judgment as to Decedent Callen Cortez’s...more
It is axiomatic that a plaintiff must offer evidentiary support for each element of her claim in order to survive summary judgment. And a ubiquitous feature of product liability actions is the use of expert witnesses by both...more
For over two decades, dating back to Daubert and the ensuing amendments to Rule 702, federal district courts have been charged to act “as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory...more
A series of recent rulings out of the Southern District of Texas in an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter case reflect how well-planned discovery can lead to a successful multipronged summary judgment motion and can effectively...more
Although “faulty” doesn’t necessarily mean “defective” or “dangerous,” product liability law does indeed hold manufacturers and others liable for producing dangerous products that cause injury. Product liability claims in...more
In Kenney v. Watts Regulator Co, No. 20-2995, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4539 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2021), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether to exclude the plaintiff’s...more
The removal of a state court action to federal court is often conceptualized in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, where, but for the plaintiff’s choice of venue, the matter could have been filed in federal court pursuant to...more
The first appellate shoe has dropped in the litigation involving the herbicide Roundup, Johnson v. Monsanto Co., decided July 20, 2020, by California’s 1st District Court of Appeal, Division One. We discussed the verdict and...more
In a decision reinforcing the importance of expert testimony in design defect and failure to warn cases, the Eastern District of New York recently dismissed claims against the makers of PAM cooking spray. In Urena v....more
Applying basic scientific principles to exclude an expert’s unfounded and unsupported opinions, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted summary judgment to the maker of the antipsychotic...more
In a recent decision, Capes v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-04895, the Northern District of Georgia finally shed light on the meaning behind one of the limited exceptions to Georgia’s ten-year statute of repose for...more
For at least two decades, Pennsylvania law has recognized an exemption from strict liability for prescription drug manufacturers based on the state Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 402A...more