Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Practice Tip: Toxic Cases ' Proceed with Caution

By Lawrence Goldhirsch

All product liability cases are difficult; however, toxic product cases that involve a substance that has caused injury during its use or application pose more of a problem than most others. For example, some spray paints may contain toxic substances that are part of the composition of the product. The warnings on such products are covered by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act ('FHSA'), which requires hazardous household products sold in interstate commerce to contain cautionary labeling, 15 USCA 1261. (A hazardous substance is toxic, an irritant, or a strong sensitizer if the substance may cause substantial personal injury or illness as a result of any reasonably foreseeable use.)

The first hurdle in a failure to warn case is the pre-emption doctrine. The FHSA pre-empts any state causes of action seeking to impose a different or more elaborate labeling requirement than that required by the Act. Milanese v. Rust-o-leum, 44 F.3d 104 (2nd Cir. 2001). Defendants often argue that where the product is covered by the FHSA, no lawsuit can be brought in a failure-to-warn case. This is not true. The FHSA does not pre-empt all such claims; claims that allege noncompliance with the Act are permitted, and it is usually a question of fact. So the very first thing a plaintiff's lawyer must do is to decide whether or not the label that came with the substance, if it has not already disappeared, complies with the Act. If the label does comply, then there is pre-emption, and there is no failure-to-warn case. If the label does not comply, which is often the case, then the lawyer can bring a failure-to-warn case. Such cases cannot rest on the fact that the product is defective in view of the fact that the product was designed to contain the toxic substance.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.