Product Liability & Mass Torts Digest
Sort by:
5 results
October 25, 2024
|3 min read
Faulty Triggers or Faulty Testimony? Court Rejects Unreliable Experts in Design Defect Case
In Colwell, the plaintiff was injured when a Sig Sauer P320 handgun allegedly discharged unintentionally into his thigh. The P320 “functions as a single-action pistol,” and while it has internal safeties “designed to prevent inadvertent discharges,” it lacks external safeties, such as a manual thumb safety or tabbed trigger safety.
March 28, 2024
|3 min read
In a case involving a plaintiff who lost his arm in a meat grinder, the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of his claims against the grinder’s manufacturer on a motion for summary judgment due to substantial modification of the meat grinder by the plaintiff’s co-workers. Khusenov v. Prokraft Inc., 2024 WL 959620 (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2024).
February 2, 2024
|4 min read
The Southern District of New York’s recent opinion in the In re Acetaminophen MDL establishes strong guardrails regarding how expert witnesses can rely on studies and data in support of their opinions. By way of background, In re Acetaminophen involves more than 600 plaintiffs who allege that the manufacturer and retailers of acetaminophen products failed to warn that children may develop autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from in utero exposure to the drug. In an opinion issued on December 18, 2023, Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York excluded all five of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts as unreliable.
December 5, 2023
|5 min read
On October 3, 2023, a three-judge panel from the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson over accusations its asbestos-tainted talcum powder caused consumers to develop cancer. The crux of the decision: improper admission of unreliable expert opinions.
March 8, 2023
|7 min read
A recent ruling by the District of Maryland in Garcia v. Sherril, Inc. demonstrates the ongoing struggle by courts to distinguish between when plaintiffs must produce expert testimony in product liability cases and the danger that courts may permit jurors to comment beyond their shoes in cases involving technical subject matter.