by KPMLAW | Aug 15, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Author: Lee Hoyle Editor: Brian A. Cafritz In products liability cases, it seems that any entity that touches the product could have liability. Manufacturers, designers, installers, sellers, and repair companies all face exposure for defective products merely because of their relationships to the product. In such cases, defendants have long relied on the “empty chair” defense. The defense, which sounds more dramatic than it is, simply means that a defendant claims that someone else, someone not before the court, is responsible for the injuries. The defense survived a challenge before the Virginia Supreme Court, but the reasoning of the decision may complicate attempts to raise the defense in the future. In Dorman v. State Indus., ___ Va. ___, 2016 Va. LEXIS 77 (June 16, 2016), the plaintiffs were several people who suffered carbon monoxide poisoning from a gas fired hot water heater, which they claimed was the result of the design of the heater. The plaintiffs brought suit against several defendants, but only the manufacturer remained at trial. The theories at trial were negligence and breach of warranty. The manufacturer denied liability on the grounds that the heater was improperly installed and maintained, even though the installer and maintenance companies were not named in the case. At trial, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant could not argue the “empty chair” defense and point the finger at the installer or the maintenance company. They claimed that because Virginia follows Joint and Several Liability, any negligence of the manufacturer made it liable for the whole verdict. As a result, the negligence of another entity was not relevant unless such negligence constituted...
by KPMLAW | Jun 14, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Updates
Author: Lee Hoyle, Esq. Editor: Brian Cafritz, Esq. Although the UCC offers some consistency between states, Products liability lawsuits, in general, are creatures of state law. 50 states means 50 potentially different tort laws. Each state can take its own approach to issues – from whether to adopt strict liability to the standard of admissibility for expert testimony to admissibility of other complaints about the product – and decide differently. Therein lies the problem. The potential disparity between outcomes from one state to the next can cause nightmares for anyone attempting to evaluate risks associated with selling products across the country. Fortunately (at least for products liability defendants), in some cases, Federal law may dictate a single, consistent answer: no products liability on a theory inconsistent with Federal law. Even where states have answered a question one way, Federal law may have something else to say. Federal law is the supreme law of the land, so any conflicting state law cannot be enforced. Such conflicts rarely arise in tort law, because there are few federal laws addressing torts. There are some industries that receive claims preemption as to certain claims due to extensive federal regulation of the industry as a whole. For example, drug manufacturers could not be sued for failure to warn when their labels complied with FDA requirements in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), while an automaker could not be held liable for failing to include airbags when such a requirement conflicted with the Department of Transportation’s regulations in Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). One interesting (and still developing)...
