- Artificial intelligence dodges a legal dart: “An Algorithm for Predicting Recidivism Isn’t a Product for Products Liability Purposes” [Eugene Volokh, Jim Beck]
- Powdered caffeine is hazardous stuff. Should Amazon be liable to the survivors of an Ohio 18-year-old who died after ingesting some bought online? [Associated Press/WKBN]
- Overview and critique of public nuisance theories of mass tort, including vaping, opioids, climate change, and other environmental [American Tort Reform Association]
- Knowledgeable review of NYC subway torts [Ross Sandler, CityLand (New York Law School]
- “1 law firm gets lion’s share of $112M in NFL concussion fees” [Associated Press/WKMG]
- Thanks Mark Pulliam for mentioning me in the course of reviewing a book that takes a rosier view of lawsuits than I do [Law and Liberty]
Posts Tagged ‘product liability’
Liability roundup
- “McConnell Demands Liability Protections in Next Coronavirus Bill” [Steven T. Dennis, Billy House, and Laura Litvan, Bloomberg; U.S. Chamber issue list] “Businesses Fear Lawsuits from Sick Employees, Patrons After Reopening” [Erik Larson, Edvard Pettersson and Christopher Yasiejko, Bloomberg] “Frivolous Litigators Bite the Hands That Care for Them” [Veronique de Rugy] “States pass lawsuit-protection measures as Pennsylvania resists” [Nicholas Malfitano, Legal Newsline]
- Retroactive workers’ comp coverage for the virus by state decree? Illinois commission beats hasty retreat after gesture in that direction [Susanne Sclafane (presumption of compensability) and Stephanie Jones/Insurance Journal, Angela Childers/Business Insurance (vote to pull back from idea was unanimous)
- White House executive order declaring emergency federal authority over meatpacking industry might have been welcomed by companies hoping for override of liability over worker illness [Liz Crampton and Gabby Orr, Politico, NBC News]
- “The Case That Could Change Product Liability” [Daniel Fisher, Chief Executive on Ford v. Bandemer at the U.S. Supreme Court] More personal jurisdiction cases bubbling up from Seventh, D.C. Circuits [Jim Beck] “Constitutional Limitations on Product Liability?” [Stephen McConnell]
- “Incorporating Catholicism: Dioceses are changing their secular legal forms to conform to canon law and insulate assets” [Stephen Bainbridge]
- “Taco Bell wins Chalupa price case after claiming plaintiffs ignored menu” [John O’Brien, Legal Newsline, earlier]
March 11 roundup
- Slightly afield from law, but good watching: Yale’s Nicholas Christakis speaks at Cato on his new book Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society [Cato Forum]
- Tech platform regulation: “The ‘EARN IT’ Act Is Another Terrible Proposal to ‘Reform’ Section 230” [Eric Goldman and more] “Why Does The NY Times Seem Literally Incapable Of Reporting Accurately On Section 230?” [Mike Masnick, TechDirt]
- Author of new book, a Fordham lawprof, “wants the U.S. Supreme Court (and other federal courts) to enforce international law standards against backward American states and localities.” It’s a no-go, says Jeremy Rabkin [Law and Liberty reviewing Martin Flaherty, Restoring the Global Judiciary]
- Police transparency, Annie E. Casey Foundation, county liquor stores and bicycle licenses in Montgomery County, and more in my new Maryland policy roundup [Free State Notes]
- Yikes: former BigLaw partner who specialized in product liability subrogation claims sentenced to five years on charges of defrauding almost $3.5 million from insurers, manufacturers and others [Judy Greenwald, Business Insurance]
- Somehow missed this in 2018: Texas lawyer disbarred for barratry is re-elected while in jail [Lowering the Bar]
Liability roundup
- Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, long a forum-shopping destination, draws lawyers to sue over cladding after London’s Grenfell Tower fire [David Murrell, Philadelphia magazine]
- Georgia lawprof Elizabeth Chamblee Burch argues in new book that lawyers are enriching themselves at the expense of their clients in mass tort multidistrict litigation [her site; Katheryn Tucker, Fulton County Daily Report; Leigh Beeson, UGA Today, more]
- “Court cases reveal secret litigation networks for trucking accidents” [Aaron Huff, Commercial Carrier Journal]
- U.S. Chamber report on private rights of action and privacy claims by Mark Brennan, Adam Cooke, and Alicia Paller of Hogan Lovells;
- “Is PFAS the next asbestos? Probably not, lawyers say, but it may come close” [Daniel Fisher, Legal NewsLine]
- Uh-oh: “Progressive advocates have recently begun working with legislators in a handful of states to provide a qui tam mechanism for enforcing state statutory rights.” [Myriam Gilles and Gary Friedman, SSRN]
Crime victim can’t sue over pre-trial release algorithm
Can a victim of a later crime use New Jersey product liability law to sue a private foundation over alleged flaws in the alternative-to-bail algorithm it had developed for the state’s use? No, a federal district court has ruled, because 1) the algorithm isn’t a product, 2) proximate causation is lacking; and 3) it’s speech so the First Amendment acts as a bar [Eugene Volokh]
July 10 roundup
- Hearse driver in HOV lane to highway patrol: you mean I can’t count the corpse as a passenger? [Michelle Lou, CNN]
- “Caterpillar Now Going After All The Cats For Trademark Cancellations” [Timothy Geigner, TechDirt, earlier]
- Before trying to open a storefront business in San Francisco you might look to this advice from commercial real estate brokers about the city’s zoning and permit hurdles, and please quit using words like “bonkers” or “flabbergasting” [Robert Fruchtman Twitter thread]
- “Lawyer engaged in ‘sustained campaign of unfounded litigation,’ disbarment recommendation says” [ABA Journal; Waukegan, Illinois]
- Breaking from two other federal appeals courts, Third Circuit rules that Amazon as a platform can be sued under strict liability principles over defective items sold by third-party vendors on its site [Brendan Pierson, Reuters] Should the ruling stand, implications for online marketplaces are dire [Eric Goldman]
- New challenges for Mathew Higbee, high volume copyright enforcement lawyer, and his clients [Paul Alan Levy, more, earlier]
Read the label: part N in a series
A Fayette County, Pennsylvania woman whose use of a hair relaxer left her partially bald admitted that she hadn’t read the instructions, but said Optimum Salon Care Defy Breakage No-Lye Relaxer is in any case too dangerous to be allowed on the market. Judge Thomas Hardiman, writing for a Third Circuit panel, rejected her contentions that the product was defective or, in the alternative, that a reasonable consumer would not have heeded the label warning and directions for use. [Matt Miller, PennLive; Nicholas Malfitano, Penn Record; Chandler v. L’Oreal]
Research on medical conditions of pregnancy
“The scientists and doctors would get excited….But as soon as their lawyers heard ‘sick, pregnant women,’ nothing happened,” Moore said. “There’s such a sense of liability.” [Carolyn Y. Johnson, Washington Post/Bartlesville, Okla., Examiner-Enterprise]
“Science Favors J&J in Talcum Powder Lawsuits”
For years lawyers have been suing Johnson & Johnson claiming that its baby powder has caused ovarian cancer, a theory that has mostly met with failure in court. This summer, however, a St. Louis jury found liability and ordered the company to pay $4.69 billion, on a related theory that asbestos contaminants in the product (as opposed to talc itself) caused the disease. On December 14 Reuters followed with a lengthy piece laying out, and implicitly siding with, the plaintiff lawyers’ accusations; the piece drew wide publicity, and the company’s shares sank by about $50 billion. Some analysts have written that J&J’s lawsuit payouts on the issue could reach $20 billion.
Now a leading business columnist has explained why he doubts that outcome. “Why? Because whether or not the company’s talcum powder contains asbestos, and whether or not it hid that fact from the public, the science remains firmly on J&J’s side.” [Joe Nocera, Bloomberg] How so? “There is no evidence that women who use talcum powder are any more likely to get ovarian cancer than women who don’t. In both California and New Jersey, judges have tossed out cases on exactly this basis.” So while plaintiffs make the most of their dark imputations of a cover-up, what they haven’t shown is that women who used the baby powder are any more likely to contract cancer than those who did not. Nocera: “And this is one mass tort where I’m convinced the science is going to win.”
Meanwhile, Mark Lanier, the Texas-based lawyer who won the St. Louis verdict, freely agrees that his efforts have helped affect J&J’s stock price. “It serves my purposes as a litigator to say, ‘Yes, get their attention; keep driving the stock down.'” [Matthew J. Belvedere, CNBC] And: “New York’s specialized court for asbestos lawsuits could become a pivotal battleground for litigation over talcum powder as plaintiff lawyers seek to establish a record of wins in a court system known for liberal rules and big jury verdicts.” [Daniel Fisher, Forbes]
Kitchen pharma and liability
Home-brewed pharmaceuticals are on the horizon (think 3D printing, but for chemicals) and Matt Jacobson is on the product liability implications for Drug & Device Law.