The Sophisticated User Defense in Minnesota: Weighing Knowledge
Claims involving a failure to warn are often centered around what a reasonable manufacturer or supplier should have foreseen was necessary to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of harm. If a supplier is deemed to have a duty to warn, the duty can be fulfilled by calling the hazards of the product directly to the attention of the eventual user; for example, through product labeling. <i>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.</i>, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich.App., 2004). However, when, as is often the case, a product passes through the hands of multiple intermediaries between the supplier and the eventual user, the situation becomes murkier, and it becomes unclear who should shoulder the burden of the duty to warn. This is where the sophisticated user defense comes in.
Judge's Order Shows Contempt for Doctors' and Lawyers' Tactics
As anticipated, Judge Janis Graham Jack's written Order 29 in the <i>In re Silica Products Liability Litigation</i> multidistrict litigation ("MDL") was far from complimentary to the plaintiff bar. The order, dated June 30, addresses subject matter jurisdiction, admissibility of evidence and sanctions for some lawyers Judge Jack basically deemed charlatans. The order followed the defendants' presentation of evidence during a 3-day hearing in February in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, which showed that many of the claims under investigation were brought on the basis of faulty or nearly nonexistent medical diagnoses.
For Defendants: Developing the Sophisticated User/Intermediary Defense
In defending silicosis claim lawsuits, defendants must try to demonstrate the knowledge and sophistication of the plaintiff. This can be challenging, however, when the plaintiff disclaims knowledge or claims reliance on specific information from his or her employer or suppliers. The "sophisticated user" defense generally focuses on the knowledge and sophistication of the employer as a corporate entity regarding the industry as a whole and the product or product's inherent hazards specifically.
Silicosis: Breathing Down on California; Texans Charge into State with Sometimes Shady Silicosis Suits
Brent Coon sees the future of lung litigation, and it's far beyond his Beaumont, TX, headquarters. Right now, he's hoping it's in San Francisco. "California's just another expansion in our drive to become a one-stop shop," the plaintiff lawyer said recently as he prepared for his June 1 takeover of another Texas firm's San Francisco office and caseload. Coon's presence ' and the recent filing of about 35 suits by the East Bay, CA, plaintiff firm Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer in conjunction with a Texas firm ' are the latest signals that California is the Texans' testing ground for silicosis lawsuits.
Allocation: Still An Open Question in Wisconsin
Allocation often is a key issue in insurance coverage cases where courts have found that long-term bodily injury or environmental contamination has taken place over many years. Occurrence-based policies typically provide coverage only for damages from injury taking place during the policy period. In many cases, courts have found it impossible to determine as a matter of fact precisely when injury took place or how much injury took place in any given period. They have thus presumed that injury took place over the entire period — often a very lengthy period — during which it may have taken place (<i>eg</i>, from first "exposure" until diagnosis of the injury or discovery of the contamination).
Practice Tip: New Federal Rules for Electronic Discovery May Become Effective in 2006
In June 2005, the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States approved comprehensive amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery of electronically stored information ('ESI'). These amendments were next presented to the Judicial Conference on Sept. 20, 2005 and then to the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. In their present forms, the amendments would become effective as of Dec. 1, 2006. These e-discovery rule amendments include changes to FRCP Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45, and focus on five areas: 1) early attention to e-discovery issues, 2) discovery of ESI that is not reasonably accessible, 3) procedure for asserting privilege after production, 4) interrogatories and requests for production of ESI, and 5) sanctions and a safe harbor for certain lost ESI.
Merck Faces New Jersey Jury After Big Texas Loss
After Merck & Co.'s devastating loss in Texas earlier this month in the first Vioxx case to go to a jury, the nation's eyes now turn to Atlantic City, where New Jersey's first case was set for trial on Sept. 12.
Respond to Recalls: Claims and Defenses
Consumers often ignore product manufacturers' recalls of defective products despite manufacturers' best efforts. The unfortunate but inevitable result is that some consumers are injured. A reasonable defense for manufacturers is that the consumer's fault in ignoring the recall negates their liability. The limited authority available, however, indicates that a manufacturer probably will not be completely exonerated from liability. A consumer's failure to respond to a recall, nevertheless, can be raised as a comparative fault defense. This article reviews existing authority and suggests strategies for manufacturers and consumers when this situation occurs.
