Articles Posted in Products Liability

The Asbestos Law Journal has this great post on a huge asbestos verdict in Mississippi a short time ago.  The blog notes that "part of why the jury did so may be because of a handwritten note that indicates one of the defendants engaged in a cost-benefit analysis that concluded it was OK to give people cancer as long as the profit exceeded the cost of the ensuing lawsuits."

Here is the a PDF of the hand-written document at issue.   The operative language is about one-third of the way down the page.

From Reuters: 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal regulations setting vehicle safety standards do not bar lawsuits seeking damages from automakers for installing lap-only seat belts.

The unanimous ruling held that a California lawsuit against Mazda Motor Corp. over a fatal 2002 collision involving a 1993 Mazda minivan could proceed. A passenger sitting in a rear seat and wearing a lap-only seat belt was killed.

Oral arguments were heard two months ago in Williamson v. Mazda Motors of America, and when the United States Supreme Court decides the case we will have a better understanding of the law of preemption.

At issue is whether a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rule permitting the use of Type1 seat belts (lap belt only) in the middle seat of passenger vehicles preempts a claim by an injured passenger that the manufacturer should have installed a Type 2 belt (includes a shoulder harness) in the vehicle.

The California Court of Appeals held that the claim was preempted.  The California Supreme Court refused to hear the case.  The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case on November 3.

Bill Marler has shared this summary of the new food safety legislation with us.  Bill actively worked to get this bill passed.

· S. 510 is intended to respond to several food safety outbreaks in recent years by strengthening the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and redoubling its efforts to prevent and respond to food safety concerns.

· The legislation expands current registration and inspection authority for FDA, and re-focuses FDA’s inspection regime based on risk assessments, such that high-risk facilities will be inspected more frequently. The bill also requires food processors to conduct a hazard analysis of their facilities and implement a plan to minimize those hazards.

Hat tip to Abnormal Use:  The Unreasonably Dangerous Products Liability Blog for advising me about this Utah lawsuit.

Apparently, a  woman followed Google Maps walking directions on her Blackberry, walking  across  a four-lane highway where she was struck by an approaching vehicle. She  sued Google; here is a copy of the suit.

Her lawyer says that  the plaintiff f was walking in an area she had never been before, at a time when it was very dark, and that Google failed to warn the Plaintiff that walking routes may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths.  Here is an image of the scene from Google. Google says that every software version for mobile devices has had a disclaimer that advises walkers to use caution since Google Maps was launched in 2008.