Mass Tort Defense : Mass Tort Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Sean P. Wajert : Dechert Law Firm : Products Liability, Class Actions, Pharmaceutical Litigation

Couple of interesting issue being debated in the Gulf Oil Spill Litigation.  In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL-2179 (E.D. La.).

The first concerns control over the testing of key components of the rig, once they are recovered.  Readers know how important such testing can be in supporting or refuting causation theories. But the very act of testing, even if not destructive, potentially alters the condition of the product.  Who goes first; what tests get run in what order; who does the testing; how tests are done... all of these can be vitally important issues in accident investigation and product liability litigation.

Defendant Transocean Ltd. unit has asked the judge in the MDL to grant a motion for a protective order that would block the government's apparent plan to unilaterally control testing of the oil rig's blowout preventer. Press reports suggest the blowout preventer could be recovered from the Gulf floor in the near future. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. and several other defendants thus filed a motion last week in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for an expedited hearing on the protective order covering the blowout preventer.

The federal government has indicated that it wants to take exclusive control of the blowout preventer, transport it to a government site, and then contract for forensic testing and analysis. The motion argues that while the government has solicited input from other parties on testing protocol, it never said it would pay attention to any of those suggestions.

The second issue is a battle between Transocean and co-defendant BP over document discovery. Transocean attorneys are claiming that BP has been withholding documents and limiting Transocean's access to sensitive information connected to the accident, including records of tests on the blowout preventer, lab reports on components of the rig such as the well cement mix, and data on equipment used to keep well pipes in place during cementing.  BP, for its part, calls the claim a "publicity stunt” designed to divert attention from Transocean's alleged role in the accident.  BP claims it has already turned over thousands of pages of documents, including materials on the initial exploration plan, lab tests and daily drilling reports, and mud log reports.

Third, the American Petroleum Institute and other parties who are defendant-intervenors have asked the MDL judge to remand one of the many coordinated cases.  Gulf Restoration Network et al. v. Salazar et al.  This one is the suit brought by environmental groups against the federal government, and the argument is that it is fundamentally different from the other cases because it focuses on administrative law issues regarding the government’s approval of offshore drilling plans.

The Gulf Restoration Network, along with the Sierra Club, accused the U.S. Department of the Interior of ignoring environmental regulations when it allegedly waived safety regulations to allow BP and Transocean to conduct offshore drilling exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.

The discovery for negligence claims at the core of the MDL, these moving parties assert, will not materially assist or advance a case that stems from the legal issue whether the federal government took proper steps in granting the companies the offshore drilling exploration permits.  In fact, the argument goes, keeping Gulf Restoration in the MDL would unreasonably delay what would normally be a quick resolution to an administrative law action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A state appeals court has ruled that an employer may face liability under New Jersey law for allegedly exposing a plaintiff to asbestos through contact with her husband's work clothes, even if she also had worked for the employer as a direct employee herself. See Anderson v. A.J. Friedman Supply, et al., No. A-5892-07T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.,  8/20/10).

Plaintiffs alleged that Bonnie Anderson contracted mesothelioma from one or both exposures to asbestos at the Linden Bayway Refinery owned by defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation (and home of the state's largest Christmas tree apparently).  The first was bystander exposure from laundering her husband John's asbestos-laden work clothes during his employment with Exxon from 1969 to 2003. (In Olivo v. Owens-Illinois Inc., 186 N.J. 394 (2006), the court had found that an employer could be liable for indirectly exposing family members to the asbestos fibers found on a employee's work clothes.)  The second was direct exposure during Bonnie's own employment with Exxon from 1974 to 1986.

At trial, plaintiffs focused on the bystander exposure, and tried to downplay any significant exposure at work.  A defense expert agreed that the only epidemiologically established cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure; it is commonly accepted today that it's possible that women can get mesothelioma from asbestos dust brought home on the clothing of a husband or parent; and that mesothelioma has an average latency period of thirty-two years.

The trial court charged the jury that asbestos brought home by John need not be the sole cause of plaintiff's asbestos-related injuries but it must be a substantial contributing factor, and if the jury were to find that Bonnie's exposure occurring during the course of her employment was the sole cause of her injury or disease, it should return a verdict for Exxon.

Exxon appealed  from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, awarding more than $7 million to the Andersons in compensatory damages.

The appellate court noted that this case presented a novel scenario of a single injury arising after a long latency period caused by one of two, or both, asbestos exposures.  The court of appeals framed the question as whether Mrs. Anderson could continue to assert a claim against Exxon if she was exposed as a result of washing the clothes but she was also an employee with possible direct exposure at that time. 

As to that question, the court turned to the "dual persona doctrine," which under New Jersey law generally provides that an employer may become like a third person, vulnerable to tort suit by an employee, outside the normal bar of the exclusivity of the workers comp system, if and only if it possesses a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to its status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes that persona as a separate legal person.

The court could find no close precedents, but one might think that the role of the defendant as employer of husband and wife and its role in the alleged exposure due to the husband's work-related clothing does not rise to the the level of a separate legal person.  But the court affirmed the trial court's reasoning that Exxon was such a dual persona, having an employer capacity for an eight year period, but then having a separate "relationship" to Mrs. Anderson as a bystander for 20 years. It was thought unfair to the plaintiff not to let her pursue her claim based on her bystander exposure, which had "absolutely nothing" to do with her employment relationship with Exxon.

That is, although Exxon could not be held liable based on her direct occupational exposure, it could be held liable pursuant to her separate exposure to the asbestos brought home by John from his Exxon job.

One might assume that if the employer was a "separate legal person" who was not protected by the workers comp scheme for purposes of the alleged bystander exposure, then at least the defendant could get some recognition on the verdict form of this separate legal entity.  But even though the trial judge viewed Exxon as "standing in two different pairs of shoes," the court refused Exxon's request to have the two legal persons listed on the verdict sheet, and declined to direct the jury to allocate fault between Bonnie's direct asbestos exposure as an Exxon employee and any bystander exposure from washing John's work clothes.

The court of appeals agreed, reasoning that the jury could not allocate any fault to Exxon as Bonnie's employer, because Exxon was immune from suit pursuant to the Workers Comp Act. The state's comparative fault doctrine provides that fault shall be allocated among each "party" in the case. The workers' compensation bar precluded Exxon from being a "party" in this litigation in its status as Bonnie's employer.

Thus, defendants like Exxon get the worst of both worlds: no safe haven under workers comp for having been the employer, but no allocation of fault because they were the employer under the workers comp scheme!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The federal government (Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority, a government-owned company), last week urged the Supreme Court to overturn a court of appeals decision that allowed Connecticut and several other states to move forward in their suit seeking greenhouse gas emissions reductions under a federal common law nuisance theory. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, No. 10-174 (U.S., brief filed 8/24/10).

Readers may recall from earlier posts that in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 2009 WL 2996729 (2nd Cir. 9/21/09),  two groups of plaintiffs, one consisting of eight states and New York City, and the other consisting of three land trusts, sued several electric power corporations that own and operate fossil-fuel-fired power plants, seeking abatement of defendants' alleged ongoing contributions to the "public nuisance of global warming." Plaintiffs claimed that global warming, to which the defendants allegedly contributed as large emitters of carbon dioxide, is causing and will continue to cause serious harm affecting human health and natural resources. The plaintiffs' theory is that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere, and that as a result of this trapped heat, the earth's temperature has risen over the years and will continue to rise in the future. Pointing to an alleged “clear scientific consensus” that global warming has already begun to alter the natural world, plaintiffs predicted that it “will accelerate over the coming decades unless action is taken to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.”

When thinking about "global climate" changes, MassTortDefense has always been sobered by the fact that humans have been trying to measure temperature consistently only since the1880s, during which time advocates think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C -- which is less than the margin of error on our ability to measure the Earth's temperature!

Anyway, plaintiffs brought these actions under the federal common law of nuisance or, in the alternative, state nuisance law, to force defendants to cap and then reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The district court held that plaintiffs' claims presented a non-justiciable political question and dismissed the complaints. 406 F. Supp. 2d 265.

On appeal to the Second Circuit, plaintiffs argued that the political question doctrine does not bar adjudication of their claims; that they had standing to assert their claims; that they had properly stated claims under the federal common law of nuisance; and that their claims were not displaced by any federal statutes.

In a lengthy opinion, the two judges (Justice, then-Judge Sotomayor had to drop out) held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaints on political question grounds; that all of plaintiffs had standing; that the federal common law of nuisance governs their claims; that plaintiffs had stated claims under the federal common law of nuisance; that their claims were not displaced by other federal law.

In a very minimalist interpretation of what is needed for standing, the Second Circuit distinguished multiple precedents of the Supreme Court which held that to have standing a plaintiff must allege an injury that is concrete, direct, real, and palpable -- not abstract.  Injury must be particularized, personal, individual, distinct, and differentiated -- not generalized or undifferentiated. The Supreme Court has further stated that the asserted injury must be actual or imminent, certainly impending and immediate --not remote, speculative, conjectural, or hypothetical. The court rejected defendants challenge that the contentions of future injury at some unspecified future date are not the kind of “imminent” injury required. The court also gave short shrift to the argument that plaintiffs could neither isolate which alleged harms will be caused by defendants' emissions, nor allege that such emissions would alone cause any future harms.

As we noted here, several defendants have filed a cert petition that raises the important, recurring question whether states and private plaintiffs have standing to seek, and whether federal common law provides authority for courts to impose, a non-statutory, judicially created regime for setting caps on greenhouse gas emissions based on vague and indeterminate nuisance concepts. It also asks the Court to decide whether judges, in addition to Congress and the EPA, may regulate greenhouse gas emissions at the behest of states and/or private parties and, if so, under what standards. Under the Second Circuit's ruling, a single judge could set emissions standards for regulated utilities across the country—or, as here, for just that subset of utilities that the plaintiffs have arbitrarily chosen to sue. Judges in subsequent cases could set different standards for other utilities or industries, or conflicting standards for these same utilities.

While the Second Circuit called this an ordinary tort suit, this litigation seeks to transfer to the judiciary nearly standard-less authority for some of the most important and sensitive economic, energy, and social policy issues presently before the country. Federal nuisance law is neither sufficiently developed nor sufficiently detailed to substitute for actual regulation. Thus, at stake is the financial health and security of numerous sectors of the economy. Indeed, virtually every entity and industry in the world is responsible for some emissions of carbon dioxide and is thus a potential defendant in climate change nuisance actions under the theory of this case. The threat of litigation, and the indeterminate exposure to monetary and injunctive relief that it entails, could substantially impede and alter the future investment decisions and employment levels of all affected industries, and ultimately every sector of the economy.

Now the government brief takes a different approach, asking the Court not to accept the case for full review, but rather to simply vacate the decision and direct the Second Circuit to reconsider two issues: whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring the lawsuit, and whether recent actions by the EPA  to regulate greenhouse gas emissions supplant the reason given by the Second Circuit for allowing the lawsuit to go forward.  Since the initial decision below, EPA has issued final rules establishing reporting requirements for major emitters of greenhouse gases; issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks endanger public health and welfare; and established new greenhouse gas emissions limits for cars and light trucks. In addition, EPA has signed off on a final rule requiring that additional categories of sources begin to track and report greenhouse gas emissions under EPA's earlier GHG reporting rule.  The Second Circuit decision was seemingly predicated on the "now-obsolete conclusion" that EPA had not taken action to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from stationary sources. 

The TVA brief also argues that  that the lower court should dismiss the case based on “prudential standing,” a narrower ground than the case or controversy argument of the other defendants.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Phillies' slugger Ryan Howard was ejected from a game this week in extra innings, leaving his team (which had no more position players) to insert ace pitcher Roy Oswalt into the outfield and to use him at the plate. First time the Phils used a pitcher in the field in decades. Howard argued a mistakenly called third strike on a check swing.

Today's post relates to a different kind of mistaken strike. The Ninth Circuit has explained that trial courts cannot strike a claim for damages on the ground that the damages are precluded as a matter of law.  Whittlestone Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., No. 09-16353 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010).  Specifically, Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not authorize the court to strike the claim for damages on the basis that such damages are legally not recoverable.

Here, the defendant field a Rule 12 motion to strike the paragraphs of the complaint that sought the recovery of lost profits and consequential damages, in alleged violation of the plain language of the parties' contract.  The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiff appealed.

Rule 12(f) states that a district court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The function of a 12(f) motion
to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that would arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.  While the motion here seemed to fit the purpose of the rule, it didn't fit the language. The court found that the damages allegations met none of those listed categories. 

Handi-Craft argued that Whittlestone’s claim for lost profits and consequential damages should be stricken from the complaint, because such damages were precluded as a matter of law.  But that meant that Handi-Craft’s 12(f) motion was really an attempt to have certain portions of  Whittlestone’s complaint dismissed or to obtain summary judgment against Whittlestone as to those portions of the suit, which attempt was better suited for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56
motion, not a Rule 12(f) motion. 

And this was not harmless error, said the 9th, because the standard for review of the different motions is not the same, and there was some question whether a 12(b)(6) motion would be granted, had it been filed.

The court concluded that Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not authorize a district court to dismiss a claim for damages on the basis it is precluded as a matter of
law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Georgia Superior Court has preliminarily approved a $6.5 million settlement between the Lowe's home improvement stores and a nationwide proposed class of drywall purchasers. Vereen v. Lowe's Home Centers Inc., SU10-CV-2267B (Ga. Super. Ct., Muscogee Cty.).

The proposed resolution of this piece of the drywall litigation would provide Lowe's gift certificates ranging from $50 to $2,000 to any consumer who purchased drywall (not just from China), as well as cash awards of up to $2,500, if the claimant can provide documentation of damages and proof of purchase. That is, plaintiffs who provide proof of purchase of drywall from Lowe's but have no proof of actual damages would receive gift cards valued up to $250. Class members unable to provide a proof of purchase would receive $50 gift cards.

Under the settlement, Lowe's also agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses up to 30% of the class fund, as well as $1 million to the plaintiff attorneys for administration of claims. The settlement purports to release Lowe's from all drywall claims.The Georgia court conditionally certified a settlement class and set a final fairness hearing for November 19th.

But the proposed settlement has apparently drawn objections from participants in the federal Chinese drywall multidistrict litigation, who are arguing that the settlement fund is too small and that the settlement would interfere with federal jurisdiction.  The plaintiffs' steering committee for the Chinese drywall multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana went so far as to move to enjoin the state court from moving ahead with the settlement, arguing that the benefit to the class is too small, and the attorneys' fees too large. Ironically, these plaintiff attorneys assert that the form of the class benefit, i.e.,  a gift card, is also improper.

The MDL lawyers assert that the parties involved in the MDL have been negotiating towards a global settlement, and allowing the state court, one-defendant settlement to go forward would simply undermine those efforts.  They called on the federal court, pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, to enjoin state court proceedings where, as here, it is allegedly necessary in aid of its jurisdiction or to protect or effectuate its judgments.

Readers will recall that after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, drywall was imported from China to address a shortage of drywall required for repairs and new construction. After the drywall was installed, homeowners began to complain of smells, gas emanations, corrosion of appliances and electrical fixtures, and other alleged property damage. The lawsuits typically allege that sulfur compound levels in the drywall are too high, causing issues with air conditioning systems, electrical appliances, internal wiring, and other electrical systems in homes. Plaintiffs also allege the drywall produces a rotten egg-like stench and causes a variety of respiratory and other health problems for those who live in the affected homes.

So far, a few bench or jury bellwether trials have been completed, with mixed results.
 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier this month a trial court in New York denied class certification purchaser of Snapple beverages who complained that drinks labeled “All Natural” are somehow misleading because they contain high fructose corn syrup.  See Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 8/3/10).

Off and on, we have commented on the growing and alarming trend for plaintiffs lawyers to concoct consumer fraud class action claims against products, even when consumers were not injured and got basically what they paid for, because of some alleged ambiguity in the label or old-fashioned puffing.

Snapple Beverage Corporation was founded in New York’s Greenwich Village in 1972. Snapple began selling and marketing its teas and juice drinks in the late 1980s. In marketing its beverages, Snapple focused on, among other things, flavor, innovation, and humor. Snapple became known for its quirky personality and funny advertising, as well as its colorful product labels and beverage names. For instance, Snapple’s television advertisements featured, among other things, Snapple bottles dressed in wigs and hats, singing in a Backstreet-esque “boy-band,” running with the bulls (hamsters with cardboard horns) in Spain, and performing synchronized swimming.

When Snapple entered the beverages market in the late 1980s, it avoided putting preservatives, which were then commonly found in some similar beverages, in its teas and juice drinks. Snapple was able to do so by using a “hot-fill” process, which uses high-temperature heat pasteurization to preserve products immediately before bottling. Snapple also used 16-ounce glass bottles instead of aluminum cans or plastic. Hence the term on their label "All Natural."

From their inception, Snapple’s beverages were sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.  HFCS is made from corn ( a natural product last time we checked), and its primary constituents are glucose and fructose, the sugars that comprise table sugar and honey (which also sound pretty natural). It is undisputed that Snapple disclosed the inclusion of HFCS in the ingredient list that appears on the label of every bottle of Snapple that was labeled “All Natural.”

But plaintiffs alleged that they paid a price premium for Snapple beverages as a result of the “All Natural” labeling, and that Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling was misleading because Snapple had HFCS.  They brought a class action on behalf of all people who purchased Snapple in New York.  The FDA is reportedly looking at whether high fructose corn syrup may be considered a natural ingredient, but the court didn't need that guidance to dispose of this bogus class claim.

The court focused on the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry which tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. The predominance requirement is met only if the plaintiff can establish that the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole, predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof.  The issues in turn are determined by the causes of action and defenses to them.  Plaintiffs' main claim was for alleged deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349. Generally, claims under § 349 are available to an individual consumer who falls victim to misrepresentations made by a seller of consumer goods through false or misleading advertising.

New York's § 349 does not require proof of actual reliance. But the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s material deceptive act caused the injury. In addition, a plaintiff must prove actual injury to recover under the statute.  The court noted that proof of actual injury in this case is bound up in proof of damages, or by how much plaintiffs have been harmed. Only by showing that plaintiffs in fact paid more for Snapple beverages as a result of Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling could plaintiffs establish the requisite elements of causation and actual injury under § 349.

The court concluded that plaintiffs had not proposed a suitable methodology for establishing the critical elements of causation and injury on a class-wide basis. Without a reliable methodology, plaintiffs had not shown that they could prove at trial using common evidence that putative class members in fact paid a premium for the beverage. Because individualized inquiries as to causation, injury, and damages for each of the millions of putative class members would  predominate over any issues of law or fact common to the class, plaintiffs’ § 349 claim could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).

In support of their contention that causation and injury were susceptible to generalized proof on a class-wide basis, plaintiffs relied on the expert report of Dr. Alan Goedde, an economist.  In his report, Goedde proposed two “approaches” for determining the purported price premium attributable to Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling: (1) a “yardstick” approach, which would use “class-wide economic data and standard economic methodologies” to “compare the price of products labeled ‘All Natural’ to similar products which do not have ‘All Natural’ labeling;” and (2) an “inherent value”  approach, which would analyze unspecified “studies and market research” to gather “data that can be used to determine the increased value, standing alone, that a product realizes due to the perception of that product being natural.”

The court found Goedde’s testimony unreliable. The witness did not demonstrate in adequate detail how his proposed “approaches” would be used to develop an empirical algorithm to determine, on a class-wide basis, whether there was a price premium as a result of Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling and, if so, how such a premium could be quantified. For example, he did not identify the products to which Snapple should be compared. He did not explain how his approach would isolate the impact of the “All Natural” labeling from the other factors that purportedly affect the price of Snapple and its competitors. He failed to take into account that there was no uniform price for Snapple beverages during the class period, and thus did not explain how his approach would account for the various prices that putative class members actually paid in determining injury
on a class-wide basis.

Goedde relied on two internal Snapple marketing strategy documents to support his alternate hypothesis that Snapple’s “All Natural” label allowed it to command a premium in the marketplace. Yet he did not review the deposition transcripts of Snapple’s witnesses or any of the other  documents produced by Snapple, which would have provided critical context for these documents.

The court accurately spotlighted the common plaintiff tactic in these kinds of cases: the failure to
invest sufficient time and effort to develop a reliable methodology to support an expert opinion at the class certification stage.  Although the court thought plaintiffs correct in arguing that Goedde need not “implement” or fully “test” his methodology at the class certification stage, an expert must still provide sufficient detail about the proposed methodology to permit a court to determine whether the methodology is suitable to the task at hand.

Without Goedde’s testimony, plaintiffs offered no evidence that a suitable methodology is available to prove the elements of causation and actual injury on a class-wide basis. Individualized inquiries would therefore be required in order to determine whether class members in fact paid a premium for Snapple beverages, and whether any such premium was attributable to the “All Natural” labeling. This would require, among other things, an examination of each of the millions of class members’ Snapple purchases, which the evidence showed were made in different locations, at different times, and for different prices, over the nearly eight-year class period.

One further issue of note is class definition.  The court found that plaintiffs failed to show how the potentially millions of putative class members could be ascertained using objective criteria that were administratively feasible. Plaintiffs - typically  - suggested that after certification, the court could require simply that class members produce a receipt, offer a product label, or even sign a declaration to confirm that the individual had purchased a Snapple beverage within the class period. The court labeled this suggestion "unrealistic." Plaintiffs offered no basis to assume that putative class members retained a receipt, bottle label, or any other concrete documentation of their purchases of Snapple beverages bearing the “All Natural” description.  Indeed, putative class members were unlikely to remember accurately every Snapple purchase during the class period, much less whether it was an “All Natural” or diet beverage, whether it was purchased as a single bottle or part of a six-pack or case, whether they used a coupon, or what price they paid. Soliciting declarations from putative class members regarding their history of Snapple purchases would invite them "to speculate, or worse."

However beloved Snapple may be, said the court,  there is no evidence to suggest that its consumers treat it like a fine wine and remove and save its labels.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The South Carolina Supreme Court last week vacated a $31 million verdict for a minor injured in a Ford Bronco rollover accident.  Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 2010 WL 3219499 (S.C. 8/16/10).  The case raises a number of interesting points for our readers.

This was a product liability action involving a Ford Bronco II.   Hale was driving the vehicle with several children as passengers, including her daughter seated in the front passenger seat.  No one was wearing a seat belt.  Hale admittedly took her eyes off the road and turned to the backseat to ask the children to quiet down. When she took her eyes off the road, the Bronco veered towards the shoulder of the road, and the rear right wheel left the roadway. She responded by over-correcting to the left, which allegedly led the vehicle to roll over.

Plaintiff, the parent of one of the injured passengers, sued. The case against Ford was based on two product liability claims, one a defective seat belt sleeve claim, and the other, a “handling and stability” design defect claim related to the vehicle's alleged tendency to rollover.  The jury returned a verdict of $16,000,000 in actual damages and $15,000,000 in punitive damages.

The trial court had dismissed the strict liability claim regarding the seat belt on the basis that the sleeve was not defective as a matter of law. But the negligence claim shared with the strict liability claim the element that the product be in a dangerous condition unreasonably dangerous. The trial court should thus have dismissed it too, the supreme court said.

The court also found that the closing argument of Branham's counsel was designed to and likely did inflame and prejudice the jury. The closing argument relied heavily on inadmissible evidence to pump up the punitives claim in requesting that the jury punish Ford.  This closing argument invited the jury to base its verdict on passion rather than reason, and the supreme court found that it denied Ford a fair trial.

But the more interesting part of the case related to Ford's two-fold argument that: (1) Branham failed to prove a reasonable alternative design pursuant to the risk-utility test; and (2) South Carolina law requires a risk-utility test in design defect cases to the exclusion of the consumer expectations test. 

The court found that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence of a feasible alternative design to get to a jury.  But, while the consumer expectations test may fit well in manufacturing defect cases, the court agreed with Ford that the test is ill-suited in design defect cases. It thus held that the exclusive test in a products liability design case is the risk-utility test, with its requirement of showing a feasible alternative design.

The very nature of feasible alternative design evidence entails the manufacturer's decision to employ one design over another. This weighing of costs and benefits attendant to that decision is the essence of the risk-utility test.  The court noted that this approach is in accord with the current Restatement (Third) of Torts.  The court noted that the Third Restatement effectively moved away from the consumer expectations test for design defects, and towards a risk-utility test.  While the feasible alternative design inquiry is the core of the risk-utility balancing test in design defect cases, the court went out of its way to note that a jury question is NOT created merely because a product can be made safer. There is a longstanding principle that a product is not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous merely because it “can be made more safe.” 

 The court sent the case back for a new trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week missed an opportunity to protect the due process rights of companies facing litigation from the improper alliance of government officials and private contingency fee counsel.  See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of General Counsel v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., No. 24 EAP 2009 (Aug. 17, 2010).

Back in 2008, OGC filed a complaint against Janssen, raising various statutory and common law tort claims related to Risperdal, a prescription antipsychotic medication marketed by Janssen.
Instead of prosecuting the action itself, OGC had retained Bailey Perrin, a private law firm based in Houston, Texas, to prosecute the action on a contingent fee basis.  The Commonwealth’s retention of contingent fee private counsel in this matter raised significant issues including whether and when state law authorizes the Office of General Counsel to enter into a contingent fee contract with outside counsel; whether the Commonwealth’s hiring of outside litigation counsel on a contingent fee basis violates the state constitution, including the separation-of-powers mandate of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and whether the Commonwealth’s hiring of outside litigation counsel on a contingent fee basis violates the due process rights of the defendant company.

This case was an appeal of the trial court’s order denying the motion of appellant Janssen to disqualify contingent fee counsel retained by appellee, the Commonwealth’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”). The Court took the case on a grant of extraordinary relief pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.§ 726.

(Note: Just last month the California supreme court took a major step backward by modifying a 1985 decision that had properly limited the power of government agencies to retain private plaintiffs attorneys on a contingency fee basis to prosecute nuisance litigation.)

The majority never reached the merits, finding no standing and narrowly construing some of Janssen's arguments to get to that result. The Court focused on the threshold question of whether Janssen had standing to challenge Bailey Perrin’s representation of the OGC. The Court acknowledged that the OGC did not even argue statutory standing to the trial court, but then concluded that Janssen didn't argue that the standing issue was thereby waived.

Thus free to inquire, the Court found no standing, and then made "clear that the standing question we are asked to decide is one of statutory interpretation" only, under the Commonwealth's Attorneys Act, which allegedly gave the OGC authority to retain outside counsel. But Janssen argued that it also had standing to move to disqualify Bailey Perrin because nothing in the Attorneys Act prevents a litigant from challenging OGC’s unconstitutional usurpation of the General Assembly’s spending powers, or from litigating due process claims deriving from the Commonwealth’s retention of private contingent fee counsel.

Indeed, Justice Saylor stated in his Dissenting Opinion that he would apply traditional standing principles; that the Constitution is obviously the supreme law of the land that cannot be trumped by a statute; and that, therefore, Janssen’s constitutional claims may not be barred by the standing limitations of the statute.

The majority dismissed that by asserting that, under the theory Justice Saylor proposed, application of the standing restriction in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act to limit standing here would be unconstitutional. But Janssen never argued that traditional standing analysis should apply, says the majority. So, while Justice Saylor has formed "a cogent argument concerning traditional standing and the constitutionality" of the act, it is not the argument the majority perceived to be advanced by Janssen. The majority refused to read Janssen’s challenge as involving a constitutional challenge to the statutory standing limitation, with a consequent resort to traditional standing principles.

That may leave the door open for defendants in a future case who are victims of the unchecked alliance of elected officials and private contingency fee plaintiff lawyers, who are not elected and have their own separate interests. 

The legal policy of many states strongly favors open, competitive bidding for contracts involving state funds. Such requirements, included in some state Constitutions and various statutes, are designed to prevent fraud, eliminate bias and favoritism, and thus protect vital public interests. Those same goals of open and good government reside in the requirement that state officials give their undivided loyalty to the people of a state.  Many of the contingent fee contracts used by state officials to bring mass tort actions violate the core principle that attorneys pursuing actions on behalf of the state represent a sovereign whose obligation to govern impartially is essential to its right to govern. Government attorneys must exercise independent judgment as a ministers of justice and not act simply as advocates. The impartiality required of government lawyers cannot be met where the private pecuniary interest inherent in the contingent fee is the primary motive force behind the bringing of the action. By turning over sovereign prosecutorial-like power to contingency counsel, a state effectively creates a new branch of government – motivated by the prospect of private gain rather than the pursuit of justice or the public welfare.

This subversion of neutrality does more than implicate the due process rights of those confronting such tainted prosecutions. Direction of state prosecutions by financially interested surrogates also damages the very public interest that such litigation is supposed to advance. Here, the allegations of the complaint were crafted more for the pecuniary goals of counsel than for the needs of the patients served by the allegedly affected state programs. 

[Your faithful blogger was able to contribute to the amicus brief of the Washington Legal Foundation, the public interest law and policy center, in this matter.]
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

U.S. Senate negotiators apparently reached an agreement last week on food safety legislation in order to have it ready for the full Senate to consider when lawmakers return from the summer recess.

The group that negotiated the framework for the new Senate version of the Food Safety Modernization Act included Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; the bill's authors Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H.; and lead co-sponsors Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Richard Burr, R-N.C.

The bill would require facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food to have in place risk-based preventive control plans to address identified hazards and prevent adulteration.  It requires importers to verify the safety of foreign suppliers and imported food. It would give the FDA additional resources to hire new inspectors and requires FDA to inspect food facilities more frequently. The bill gives the FDA authority to order a mandatory recall of a food product if the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death and a company has failed to voluntarily recall the product upon FDA’s request. It has provisions to enhance surveillance systems to detect food-borne illnesses.

Significantly, this version does not include language banning BPA, as originally demanded by Sen. Feinstein.  Her prior insistence, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting such a ban, was one of the major logjams for the bill. She says she still plans to introduce an amendment to ban BPA from children’s products as soon as the bill arrives on the Senate floor.  Clearly, an abrupt and unnecessary ban on packaging containing BPA would affect consumer ability to find nutritious, valuable, and shelf-stable foods and beverages. The proposed ban runs counter to the fact that BPA has been used for over 30 years to improve the safety and quality of food and beverages, including by providing protective coating for cans. The overwhelming scientific evidence points to the conclusion that at current human exposure levels, BPA is not toxic. What is in fact occurring is that anti-chemical activists are simply manipulating consumers’ fears, and opportunistic politicians are jumping in.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks