Articles Posted in Product Defect Litigation

by

Those who would prefer that court records remain secret have a higher burden in trying to keep filed pleadings, court orders, minute entries, hearing transcripts, trial exhibits and discovery documents filed with the court as attachments to motions. For those who wish to have court records secret, the proponent must demonstrate that sealing is warranted under both the federal common law and the First Amendment, which serves as independent grounds for challenging secrecy orders. Lawyers who motion to seal court records and files must demonstrate to the court and the opposition a very strong reason why public access should be denied. 

Under the federal common law, courts begin with a presumption in favor of public access. Under the federal law, the presumption of public access can be overcome if the proponent of this secrecy effort demonstrates “compelling reasons” for secrecy that are supported by “specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) and Union Oil Co. v. Levall, 2020 Fed. 3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000).

One of the standards and a compelling reason to seal or make secret court files may be found when disclosing the court records would result in “improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets,” but not much beyond that.  Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F. 3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Continue reading

by

John Baugh sustained a severe brain injury when the Cuprum ladder that he was using to clean his gutters buckled and collapsed. Baugh’s wife Sharon filed a lawsuit on his behalf against Cuprum S.A.de C.V. claiming that the defective design and the manufacturer’s negligence was the cause of her husband’s injuries.  John could not testify as to what happened to him because of his injuries.

About three months before the beginning of the trial, the defendant, Cuprum, informed plaintiff’s attorney that it intended to use an exemplar of the actual ladder at the jury trial. The exemplar ladder was new, but had been built to the exact specifications to the ladder that Baugh had used. In a pretrial conference on Feb. 1, 2011, Cuprum’s exemplar ladder was marked as an exhibit “for Demonstrative Purposes.”  The plaintiff’s counsel objected to any use of the new exemplar ladder at trial. Discovery had been closed for two years. The ladder had not been included in Cuprum’s expert disclosures. 

In response to the objection, Cuprum argued that the exemplar ladder was for demonstrative purposes and that it would be used during direct examination of its expert witness. It was not intended to be substantive evidence.  Cuprum also argued that the exemplar ladder would be used to demonstrate and help the jury understand the expert’s testimony. 

Continue reading

by

A district court judge in Chicago granted the motion of defendant Ryobi Technologies Inc.  to exclude an expert witness as unreliable and irrelevant. Purportedly, it would have cost Ryobi $50 to $150 to install an automatic braking system on the table saw that sliced off Brandon Stollings’s index finger and portions of several other fingers in a “kickback” incident.

Under Illinois law, it is required that expert testimony is necessary to prove that a product was unreasonably dangerous.  Stollings wanted to call John Graham as his expert to testify that each saw sold without the safety device burdens society with an average of $753 in accident costs. The basis of Graham’s opinion was that the automatic braking system would have been 90 percent effective.

After this appeal was taken, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed ruling that the district court judge’s exclusion of Graham’s testimony on reliability grounds was an abuse of discretion because it “intruded too far into the province of the jury.” Graham’s expert opinion was relevant as to whether the Ryobi saw was unreasonably dangerous. 

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago reversed a district court decision granting summary judgment where the court found that the expert testimony for the plaintiff was unreliable. Donald Schultz was a painter for American Motors Corp. from 1981 until 1989. Benzene was a substance in the paint that was used.Mr. Schultz died in 2006 from an acute myeloid leukemia (AML) related to benzene exposure. 

The wife of Mr. Schultz, Joann, filed a lawsuit against Akzo Nobel Paints (formerly known as the Glidden Co.), asserting that the benzene in the paint caused Mr. Schultz’s AML and subsequently his death.

Akzo moved for summary judgment using the expert testimony of its expert toxicologist, David Pyatt. Pyatt’s opinion was that the benzene exposure did not cause Mr. Schultz’s AML because only workers exposed to more than 40 parts per million (ppm) years of benzene developed AML.

Continue reading

by

The family of a woman who died when her Toyota Camry suddenly accelerated and crashed, despite her efforts to stop it, has sued the Toyota Motor Corp. In opening statement the attorney for the plaintiff’s family asked the jury to return a verdict in excess of $20 million.

This case involves the death of Noriko Uno, who died in her Camry in 2009. This is the first case of this sort to go to trial in state court. The case was filed in Los Angeles County, Calif.

Toyota had recalled millions of its vehicles worldwide after it was reported by its drivers that some of its vehicles were surging without notice. The company has agreed to pay $1 billion in other related lawsuits.

Continue reading