Products Liability

July 17, 2024

No duty to warn where booster seat was made dangerous by addition of aftermarket part.

Where a child’s booster seat was only dangerous because it was used in conjunction with an aftermarket seat belt extender, the booster seat manufacturer had no duty to warn purchasers of that potential danger under Tennessee products liability law.

In Woodruff v. Ford Motor Company, No. E2023-00488-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2024), plaintiff’s husband was killed and her children were severely injured in a car accident. At the time of the accident, her husband was driving a Nissan vehicle. Her son sat in the back seat in a booster seat manufactured by defendant. Because the car had recessed seat belt receivers, the husband had added a seat belt extender to the back seat belt and used it on the seat belt securing the son in the booster seat. The seat belt extender was not manufactured by the same company as the booster seat and had no affiliation with the booster seat.

After the accident, plaintiff filed this products liability case against several manufacturers and sellers. (See this post for a separate opinion in this case affirming summary judgment for Ford Motor Company as the manufacturer of the seat belt extender). Relevant to this opinion, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant booster seat manufacturer, finding that defendant had no duty to warn about a seat belt extender that it did not manufacture or sell. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.

July 15, 2024

Manufacturer not liable for seat belt extender used on booster seat

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Because a seat belt connector was safe for its intended use when it left the manufacturer, the manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s failure to warn claim.

In Woodruff v. Ford Motor Company, No. E2023-00889-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2024), plaintiff’s husband was killed and her children were severely injured in a car accident. At the time of the accident, her husband was driving a Nissan vehicle. Her son sat in a booster seat in the back seat. Because the car had recessed seat belt receivers, the husband had added a seat belt extender to the back seat belt. The seat belt extender attached to the seat belt securing the son and his booster seat.

The seat belt extender bore defendant Ford’s brand on it. Ford worked with another company to design and create the extender, then sold it to Ford dealerships. The extender was intended to be used for adults who needed additional seat belt room in the front seat of a specific model of Ford vehicle. The extender in use by plaintiff’s son was purchased from a person who worked at a Ford dealership.

March 24, 2022

No exception to products liability statute of repose for latent disease or fraudulent concealment.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff filed a products liability claim based on a hip replacement device she had received, but her hip replacement occurred more than ten years before her suit was filed, dismissal based on the statute of repose was affirmed.

In Jones v. Smith & Nephew Inc., No. W2021-00426-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 767709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2022), plaintiff had a hip replacement in January 2009 in which a metal-on-metal device was implanted. This device caused plaintiff significant issues, which resulted in her having to have a second surgery to replace the original replacement device in November 2019.

Plaintiff filed this products liability suit in November 2020, asserting that defendant, who manufactured, marketed, and sold the original replacement device, “actively and intentionally misled the public, medical community, health care providers, and patients into believing these products were safe and effective.” In an amended complaint, plaintiff asserted that the statute of repose found in the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA) would not bar her action because “the injuries suffered by [plaintiff] often take considerably longer than ten years to manifest themselves, in a fashion similar to injuries from exposure to asbestos.” Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of repose, which the trial court granted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

March 16, 2022

Injury Involving ATV Winch Case Will Be Tried Before Jury

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where there were genuine issues of material fact in a products liability case filed against the manufacturer and seller of an ATV, summary judgment for defendants was reversed.

In Vaulton v. Polaris Industries, Inc., No. E2021-00489-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 628502 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2022), plaintiffs filed this product liability suit after their 14-year-old son was injured, losing his finger, when he and a friend were using a Polaris ATV. The accident occurred when the son noticed that the hook attached to the winch was in the wrong position. While the son was holding the hook, he had his friend push the out button on the winch, but the winch went inward instead of outward, causing the severe injury.

January 25, 2021

Manufacturer has no duty to warn regarding products it did not make, sell or distribute.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that product liability defendants “cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from products they did not make, distribute, or sell.” In Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., No. E2017-01985-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Jan. 4, 2021), plaintiff was the wife of a deceased employee of a chemical plant. The husband died after being diagnosed with mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure at work.

Plaintiff brought this products liability claim against numerous defendants, including several industrial equipment manufacturers who made and sold equipment used by the deceased husband at his job. Plaintiff claimed that while the equipment made by these defendants did not contain asbestos, the defendants knew that the equipment would have to be integrated with asbestos-containing parts in order to be repaired and maintained. Plaintiff argued that defendants were liable under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA) because “their products were unreasonably dangerous and because the Equipment Defendants failed to adequately warn users of potential asbestos exposure resulting from the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing materials manufactured and sold by others,” and that defendants “were liable under a duty-to-warn theory because it was foreseeable, and even intended, that their equipment be repaired and maintained with asbestos-containing materials.”

April 9, 2020

Where Can A Product Manufacturer Be Sued?

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Under what circumstances can a product manufacturer be hauled into state court to defend a products liability claim when the injury occurred in that state ? Or, as put by Ford Motor Company in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court:

Whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement for a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.

The United States Supreme Court has accepted Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court for review, consolidating it with the Minnesota case of Ford Motor Corporation vs. Bandemer.

September 4, 2019

Product Liability and the Duty to Warn (And More)

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In an asbestos case, a balancing test should have been used to determine whether manufacturers “had a duty to warn about the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing products manufactured and sold by others.” Further, expert testimony regarding the effects of asbestos exposure on a plaintiff did not have to be based on “firsthand knowledge.”

Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., No. E2017-01985-COA-R3-CV, No. E2017-02389-COA-R3-CV, No. E2017-00062-COA-R3-CV through E2017-00067-COA-R3-CV, No. E2017-00069-COA-R3-CV, No. E2017-00071-COA-R3-CV, No. E2017-00075-COA-R3-CV, No. E2017-00078-COA-R3-CV, No. E2017-00995-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 2019), was a very long, detailed opinion regarding asbestos-related products liability claims made by plaintiff against many defendants. The trial court had granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims based on a four-year statute of repose, a ten-year statute of repose, and plaintiff’s failure to show causation, but the Court of Appeals vacated the judgments, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to all plaintiff’s claims. Continue reading

July 30, 2018

Products Liability Statute of Repose Bars Claim

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Tennessee products liability claims are subject to a ten-year statute of repose, and that limitation period is not subject to equitable estoppel.

In Ismoilov v. Sears Holdings Corporation, No. M2017-00897-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2018), plaintiff brought a products liability suit based on a water heater that broke, causing a leak and damaging his property. The water heater in question was purchased on June 2, 2005, and plaintiff asserted that it was sold with a 12-year warranty. Plaintiff filed his suit on June 16, 2015, seeking damages for property damage to his home, unpaid rent, reduced rental value and cleaning fees. It was undisputed that defendant had replaced the water heater before the suit was filed.

The trial court dismissed all claims other than the warranty claims on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the claims all sounded in product liability and were time barred by the ten-year statute of repose. The trial court subsequently granted defendant summary judgment on the express warranty claim after defendant put forth evidence that the express warranty included replacement of the damaged heater only. Plaintiff appealed these findings, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

July 18, 2017

$3 Million Dollar Verdict Vacated Due to Defective Verdict Form

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

In Stockton v. Ford Motor Co., No. W2016-01175-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), the Court of Appeals vacated a jury verdict in a Tennessee products liability case due to a defective jury verdict form.

Plaintiff was the wife of an auto mechanic who owned his own shop. Husband worked on all types of cars, including cars made by defendant Ford. It was undisputed that for a period of time, all car manufacturers, including Ford, used asbestos in their brake pads and linings. When brake pads and linings are replaced and/or grinded to the correct size, a dust is created, and the dust “can spread into the air and can be inhaled by mechanics and bystanders.” Plaintiff wife never worked directly with the brake pads or linings, but she cleaned the store twice a week and did her husband’s laundry. In 2011, plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which was caused by exposure to asbestos.

Plaintiff filed this products liability suit against Ford seeking compensatory and punitive damages. During a jury trial, Ford pointed out that it had sent husband “warnings that brakes and other components contained asbestos,” and that husband had received training in 1977 and 1982 “explicitly warning that breathing dust from asbestos-containing automobile products could be hazardous…” The jury found Ford 71% at fault for plaintiff’s injuries, and plaintiff was awarded a total judgment of just over $3 million, which Ford appealed.

May 1, 2017

Amount of Attorneys’ Fees Awarded as Sanction Must be Causally Related to Misconduct

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The United States Supreme Court recently analyzed a federal court’s “inherent authority to sanction bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side’s legal fees,” holding that such an award was “limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct.”

In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haegger, No. 15-1406, 581 U.S. ____ (April 18, 2017), the Haeger family had sued Goodyear after a Goodyear tire allegedly failed and caused their motorhome to flip over. During the original suit, Goodyear was slow and unresponsive to many of the Haegers’ discovery requests, especially when the Haegers requested internal company tests for the tire at issue. The case eventually settled just before trial. Months later, the Haegers’ attorney noticed a news story indicating that, in a similar suit, Goodyear had disclosed “test results indicating that the tire got unusually hot at highway speeds.” Goodyear subsequently admitted to the attorney that it had withheld information in the Haeger suit.

Because the case had already settled, the district court was limited in its options when addressing Goodyear’s misconduct, and “[a]ll it could do for the Haegers was to order Goodyear to reimburse them for attorney’s fees and costs paid during the suit.” The district court determined that this award could be “comprehensive, covering both expenses that could be causally tied to Goodyear’s misconduct and those that could not.” The district court calculated all the Haegers’ litigation expenses after the very early moment when Goodyear first dishonestly responded to discovery and awarded the Haegers $2.7 million. When explaining its award, the district court stated that while the usual case requires the fees awarded to be causally related to the misconduct, the misconduct in this case “rose to a truly egregious level.” The district court found that the level of misconduct here meant that all attorneys’ fees could be awarded with no need to find a causal link between the fees and the sanctioned party’s conduct.