Product Liability

Published on: November 9, 2015

California Court Dismisses Class Action Alleging Use of Term “Handcrafted” Was Misleading

Earlier this month, a California federal court dismissed a class action lawsuit seeking to recover damages from the makers of Jim Bean, claiming that the company violated state consumer protection laws by labeling some of its whiskey and bourbon products as “handcrafted.” Dating back to the 1820s, bourbon is a type of whiskey. The term bourbon reached pervasive usage during the 1870s. Today, the Kentucky Distillers’ Association reports that roughly 95 percent of the world’s supply of bourbon is produced in Kentucky.

In Welk v. Beam Suntory Import Co., the plaintiffs’ complaint asserted claims under California’s consumer protection laws, including the False Advertising Law (FAL) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). In response to the complaint, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that under the state’s safe harbor doctrine, the company is insulated from state law claims due to its compliance with federal labeling laws. The company also alleged that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim because the plaintiffs did not allege any facts showing that a reasonable consumer would find the label misleading. Also, the defendant contended that the economic loss doctrine prevented the plaintiffs from pursuing the claim for negligent misrepresentation.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 6, 2015

Colorado Court Considers First Cannabis Product Liability Lawsuit

By Moll Law Group

While a number of states are moving to legalize the use of cannabis, manufacturers of products containing marijuana may not be entirely clear when it comes to understanding how product liability rules will apply to them. In the recent case of Flores v. LivWell, Inc., two marijuana consumers sued the defendant, claiming that a fungicide known as Eagle 20, a petroleum-based product, was used during the marijuana growing process. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Colorado-based defendant, one of the largest producers of cannabis in the state.

The plaintiffs alleged specifically that the company used Eagle 20 without adequately warning consumers of the potential side effects and dangers associated with the insecticide. According to their complaint, however, neither of the two plaintiffs alleged that they became ill or experienced any of the potential side effects after ingesting cannabis products they purchased from the defendant.

Eagle 20 is a controversial substance, especially when it comes to cannabis cultivation. The product is used to kill pests and mites that destroy crops. One of the main ingredients in the product is Myclobutanil, which breaks down into hydrogen cyanide–a poison–when subjected to heat. The product is permitted for use in vegetation that will not ultimately be inhaled. As a result, the Colorado Department of Agriculture has banned the use of Eagle 20 for tobacco crops because the end use for tobacco and similar plants is inhalation.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 26, 2015

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Denial of Class Action in Diet Drug Lawsuit

By Moll Law Group

Earlier this year, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a proposed class action based on the plaintiffs’ failure to meet a number of the four required elements of class certification.

In Karhu v. Vital Pharm, Inc., the defendant manufactured and marketed a dietary supplement intended to help users lose weight. The defendant marketed the product for this purpose. The plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit alleged that the product did not in fact aid with weight loss as the defendant claimed. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of product users nationwide.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 22, 2015

Another Table Saw Product Liability Case Filed in Alabama Involving SawStop Technology

By Moll Law Group

Each year, roughly 35,000 to 40,000 individuals sustain serious injuries while using table saws. Due to the nature of how these products are used, one of the most common types of injuries involves the operator’s fingers, hands, and arms.

In the recent case of Ingram v. Sears, a man from Alabama filed a lawsuit against Sears Roebuck & Co. after he lost several fingers while using a Craftsman table saw when his fingers came into contact with the saw blade. Ultimately, the plaintiff required the amputation of several fingers on his left hand.

Asserting claims for relief under product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty theories, the plaintiff’s complaint states that the man was using the product in a reasonable manner and exercising all due care to ensure his own safety. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant knew the table saw was dangerous when it designed, manufactured, marketed, tested, approved, inspected, and sold the device.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 16, 2015

California Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Claims Alleging Food Company Products’ Labels were Misleading

By Moll Law Group

In Guttmann v. Nissin Foods (USA) Co., Inc., a California federal court dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the defendant had engaged in false advertising regarding the safety of its noodle products, based on the presence of trans fat in the product. More specifically, the plaintiff indicated that he had assumed the defendant’s products were safe for consumption based on the product’s label, while also contending that he suffered economic damages as a result of being deprived of the benefits of the product that he thought he was purchasing.

After the plaintiff filed his lawsuit, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a document stating that partially hydrogenated oils, or trans fat, no longer carry the agency’s “GRAS,” or “generally recognized as safe” approval. Based on this document, food producers and manufacturers must now remove any trans fat from their food products by the year 2018.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 14, 2015

California Court of Appeal Upholds Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Pipe Manufacturer in Fatal Product Liability Action

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District upheld a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant pipe manufacturer on the basis that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was through the workers’ compensation system.

In Melendrez et al. v. Ameron International Corp., one of the defendant’s employees, who had been employed with the defendant for nearly 25 years, was authorized to take home pipes that had been rejected at the manufacturing plant so that he could use them for improvements to his patio at home and to create flower pots. Sometime in 2011, the man was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and he unfortunately died one year later.

Continue reading →