As we posted last week, there’s a new “popcorn lung” case on the block.  Plaintiffs’ attorneys everywhere must be licking their chops (and fingers) with news of the $7.2 million verdict in that fateful Colorado case.  While popcorn lung cases are certainly not new, this one is somewhat different. So, we figured it deserved more in depth treatment.  Typically, popcorn lung cases involve occupational exposure of employees who worked in a plant where a particular chemical was used as an ingredient in butter flavoring.  This new case involves a Plaintiff who just REALLY liked popcorn.  He brought suit claiming that eating popcorn injured him, and a jury paid him handily.

Popcorn lung is the term coined to refer to a relatively rare lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans, which is somewhat similar to asbestosis.  One purported cause of bronchiolitis obliterans is the chemical diacetyl.  Diacetyl was used for many years as ingredient in artificial butter flavoring like the kind used on microwave popcorn.  The chemical was the subject of a number of lawsuits and multi-million-dollar verdicts in 2004 and 2005 arising from factory workers testing and inhaling the fumes from hundreds of bags of microwave popcorn a day.  At least some popcorn makers removed the chemical back in 2007

So how did this particular Plaintiff, who never worked around diacetyl, get popcorn lung?  By eating popcorn.   A LOT OF POPCORN.  This Plaintiff claims to have eaten two bags of popcorn everyday for 10 years.  He brought suit in 2008 against Glister-Mary Lee and Kroger, among others, claiming that by cooking and eating popcorn he developed bronchiolitis obliterans.  While eating two bags a day for 10 years may seem like a stretch, hospital workers apparently performed chemical testing in his kitchen and found levels of diacetyl similar to factory conditions (between .5 and 3 parts per million).  The Plaintiff’s attorneys argued that the defendants should have warned customers that inhaling the buttery aroma could put them at risk of lung damage.  A jury agreed with these claims and gave him $2.3 million for his reduced lung capacity and other damages.  They threw a $5 million in punitive just for good measure.

The question: will we see more such cases in the future or is this a one time fluke for a popcorn junkie?

There has been a $7 million verdict in Wayne Watson v. Dillon Companies, Inc. et al., in Colorado. Watson is a products liability case, and the basic allegation is that microwaveable popcorn gave the Plaintiff lung disease. Hence, the “Popcorn Lung” case, as these cases are being called. When I first heard of this type of litigation, my first thought was that this was yet another case mocking the integrity of the American judicial system, and I was frankly surprised that a federal judge had allowed this abomination to survive summary judgment. After all, the thought that microwaveable popcorn—of all things—could cause lung disease strikes me as utterly preposterous.

But after some investigation, I’ve been forced to temper my initial judgment.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I’m buying what the plaintiff is selling, even though the jury apparently did. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s as implausible as I first believed. Here’s why.

The theory of the case was not that microwaveable popcorn per se causes lung disease. It’s that a particular chemical that was commonly used to give microwaveable popcorn its buttery taste—diacetyl—can cause lung disease. And this argument is not new. In the early 2000s, there were a series of cases brought by folks who worked in commercial popcorn production facilities who made the same claim; that because of their long-term exposure to significant amounts of diacetyl in the air, they developed certain forms of lung disease. So ostensibly, there may be some science to back up the claims in those cases, which may be applicable to the Watson case.

Let’s assume – just for the sake of this post, mind you – that the research in the commercial popcorn workers’ cases is somehow founded. We’ve not reviewed all that literature, nor have we looked into the expert reports in the Watson case. But bear with us. Even if that research is founded, there seems to be a leap of faith that must be taken to get from those cases to Watson’s. Watson wasn’t a commercial popcorn worker. However, his claim is that during the corn-popping process, diacetyl is vaporized into aerosol form, and like the commercial popcorn workers, he inhaled the diacetyl which is now claimed to have caused his lung disease. We would expect Watson’s dose to be significantly less than the doses presumably inhaled by commercial popcorn workers—even though Watson claims to have eaten 2 to 3 bags of microwaveable popcorn every day for several years. The critical scientific question, then, is where does a person’s exposure to diacetyl cross the line into the danger zone?

I don’t think the importance of this question can be overstated. After all, I’ve eaten microwaveable popcorn. You’ve eaten microwaveable popcorn. And probably every member of that jury has eaten microwaveable popcorn (although after the trial, we suspect that the jurors who found the defendants liable may be cutting down on their microwavable popcorn intake). Yet, somehow, the icy hand of Orville Redenbacher reached out from beyond the grave and struck Watson down with popcorn-induced lung disease? That seems hard to believe. To win this case, plaintiff’s counsel needed to enable the jury to overcome their natural suspicion towards these claims, and the science is going to have to be pretty darn good.  Apparently, it worked.

But there’s a marketing point here to be made. “Popcorn Lung” sounds ridiculous. The name trivializes the purported issues and conjures up the same ghosts that haunt the “McDonald’s Coffee” case. To many an average person, this verdict will represent everything that is wrong with the American judicial system. The proposition that microwaveable popcorn—a staple of each American household and every family movie night—is associated with lung disease will be difficult for many readers to overcome.  The jury somehow overcame that skepticism. If I’m plaintiff’s counsel, the enemy here should be diacetyl, if the science truly supports that theory. Sure, it was applied to microwaveable popcorn. But that product is safe. Perhaps that explains it.

Does a business establishment, such as a restaurant, shop, or theater, owe patrons a duty of care to protect them against psychopaths with body armor and semi-automatic weapons?  According to the families of some the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting victims, the answer is “yes.”  Families of the victims are threatening a lawsuit against the owner of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater where the shootings took place.

The law firm of Napoli, Bern, Ripka, and Scholonik claims that Cinemark, the company that owns the Aurora movie theater, is liable for the tragedy and should compensate the victims and their families for their loss.  One of the firm’s attorneys, Marc Bern, told CBS News, “We have the experience and the contacts to hopefully end this litigation quickly. The victims here are some of the worst types of injuries that I have seen in over 37 years of practice.  I believe that the primary responsibility at this point rests with Cinemark.”  Apparently, their theory is that Cinemark should have had the additional security necessary to prevent the shootings.

It is interesting that Mr. Bern chose to say the “primary responsibility” for the shooting lies with Cinemark.  I would have probably placed the primary responsibility on the guy with the gun who was actually doing the shooting.

I feel a lot of compassion for the victims and the families of the victims of this heinous crime.  I really do; no one can imagine that fear and anguish that they experienced that terrible night and very likely continue to suffer.  However, I just do not see how the movie theater has any responsibility to pay for the actions this psychopathic killer.   Of course, a theater owes a duty to its patrons to keep them safe within reason.   But the shooter bought a ticket, left the theatre through an emergency exit and propped it open, donned a full suit of body armor, returned into the theatre, and then opened fire with a military grade semi-automatic weapon.   Was it reasonable to expect a movie theater to be prepared to protect patrons against the actions of an unexpected intruder in body armor with a semi-automatic weapon?  As recent events have show, even the military struggles to protect their own under similar circumstances.

If this case makes it to court, it has the potential of setting a dangerous precedent for the duty that business owners owe to patrons.  It could now be up to the business owners to anticipate nearly any crimes committed on their premises and be prepared to take steps to keep them from happening.  This is a very expensive proposition. It would, of course, ultimately lead to increased security costs and insurance premiums.  These costs will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer.

Ultimately, this suit would likely fail, as courts have generally recognized that crime fighting is an inherently governmental function.  Courts usually will not impose a duty to protect upon a business unless there have been similar prior incidents or the incident was foreseeable under the totality of the circumstances.

Colorado’s Stanley Gale is a lot of things.  A skier with a Level I Alpine certification.  An alumnus of the Alpine Ski Patrol.  An expert qualified in the areas of ski safety and accident reconstruction.  However, in Squires v. Goodwin, No. 10-cv-00309, 2011 WL 5331583 (D. Col. Nov. 7, 2011), a Colorado federal court held that he wasn’t qualified to testify as to the design, manufacture, or risk associated with bi-ski adaptive skiing equipment.  Preposterous, you say?  How can a man with 38-years of experience as a ski patrol officer not qualify him as an expert you ask?  Certainly, the court must be in error.

In Squires, the case arose out of a 2008 ski accident at the Breckenridge Ski Resort in Colorado.  The plaintiff, a 17-year old girl with cerebral palsy and legal blindness, was injured when her ski instructor lost control of the tethers connected to a bi-ski manufactured by Mountain Man, Inc.  After the instructor lost control of the tethers, the plaintiff continued down a ski slope in the bi-ski until it collided with a tree.  The plaintiff filed suit against the instructor and the Breckenridge Outdoor Eduction Center.  Thereafter, she amended her complaint, adding claims for strict products liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness, common law negligence, and breach of express warranty against Mountain Man.  The plaintiff retained Gale as an expert to testify regarding the inherent danger presented with the design of the bi-ski.

Mountain Man moved to strike the opinions of Gale on the grounds that they failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence or the standards outlined in Daubert.  According to the plaintiff, Gale was qualified to testify about the alleged deficiencies in the bi-ski because he has “extensive knowledge and experience with ski patrol equipment and mountain terrain safety.”  Further, the plaintiff argued Gale’s opinions were based on “sound principles.”  However, these “sound principles” were never articulated.

The Court conceded that Gale may be qualified to testify as an expert in certain fields – but not in the areas of product design, manufacture, and product warnings.  Gale has never been employed by a ski equipment manufacturer and has no formal training in the field.  While experts are granted wide latitude to offer opinions, the Court indicated that these opinions must have some reliable basis.  Despite the apparent lack of ski product design experience, Gale opined that the bi-ski was “inherently unsafe and not designed for powerful forces” because “all of the plastic buckles on the bi-ski seat broke.”  Gale identified no formal methodology as a basis for his opinions.

Gale’s opinions did not cease with his “broken buckle” logic.  He also proposed an alternative design for the bi-ski involving “some sort of braking device which could be controlled by the person strapped to the bi-ski.”  While Gale’s hypothesis sounds intriguing, he offered no specifications for the design, demonstrations of its feasibility, or explanations of how it would be employed by a person with physical impairments.  The Court described his opinions on the alternative design as a “subjective belief that unknown individuals with actual qualifications could ‘come up with something.'”  Apparently, these opinions are not the reliability envisioned by Rule 702.

Knowing the significance of expert testimony in products litigation, we must question the plaintiff’s choice of Gale.  Sure, he is an experienced ski instructor, but couldn’t the plaintiff find someone more linked-in to ski design and manufacture?  Maybe the plaintiff prepped for the Daubert hearing by reviewing the qualification of Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei) in My Cousin Vinny.  If Vito is qualified to testify in general automotive knowledge because she comes from a family of mechanics, Gale’s skiing experience should qualify him to talk about the design and manufacture of skis right?  After all, with 38 years of experience on the slopes, Gale has seen a lot of skis.  Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the Court was not as impressed as Jim Trotter (Lane Smith) and Judge Chamberlain Haller (Fred Gwynne).

Fortunately for Mountain Man, the Court got this one right.  Gale was not qualified as an expert in product design and the Court granted Mountain Man’s motion for summary judgment as a result.  As for Gale, well he won’t be able to add “ski equipment expert” to his CV.  Maybe he can spend his time away from the trial, designing that braking device.

Jury instructions served as the basis for appeal in Kokins v. Teleflex, Inc., 621 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2010) (PDF). This suit arose out of an accident involving a city park ranger, who was thrown from a boat after the boat’s steering cable snapped and sustained a permanent injury to her ankle. She sued the manufacturer of the steering cable, alleging that it was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous. During discovery, the parties determined and agreed that the reason the cable snapped was because water had somehow entered the core of the cable and caused it to rust. The parties could not agree on how the water got there. The plaintiff alleged that the cable was defectively designed and that a simple fix to the design could have prevented the water from entering into the cable’s core. Teleflex, however, provided evidence at trial that the cable was improperly installed, and had not undergone routine maintenance.

One of the more interesting problems in products law is how to handle the middle man. If the retailer does not design or manufacture a product, but merely stocks its shelves, can he be liable to a plaintiff who is injured by the product? Different states handle the question differently.

Rather than describing the due process limitation on a state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction, “minimum contacts” may more accurately describe the interpersonal relationships of some of us at Abnormal Use. While relationships and the due process limits on personal jurisdiction may both be equally obtuse, only one can support a blog post. Alas, perhaps we can make some headway with personal jurisdiction.

The Colorado Court of Appeals recently found minimum contacts supporting personal jurisdiction in Etchieson v. Central Purchasing, LLC, No. 09-CA-0218, 2010 WL 1491642 (Colo. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2010) [PDF]. Etchieson was injured when an electric meter exploded. As happens now in our globalized society, the defective product was manufactured outside of the United States by a Chinese company (“Precision”) with “no offices, employees, or facilities in the United States.” Id. The electric meter was purchased and sold among several companies before reaching the hands of the Plaintiff. Without going through a painful recitation of the facts, perhaps it is sufficient to say that Precision purposefully sold its product in the United States, but Precision did not “aim any advertising exclusively at Colorado and no Precision personnel ever visited Colorado.” Id. The trial court found these contacts insufficient to support exercise of the long-arm statute, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

The Colorado Court of Appeals discussed specific jurisdiction and Supreme Court precedent involving foreign corporations. At the risk of oversimplifying, the court of appeals reasoned that Precision purposefully manufactured its product for the United States market, and, because of that general availing of the broader market, Precision availed itself of the Colorado market. Moreover, specific jurisdiction was reasonable because “in the context of product liability, the limits on personal jurisdiction have been relaxed as trade has . . . globalized . . . and as modern transportation and communication have eased the burden of defending oneself in a distant state . . . .” Id. Therefore, personal jurisdiction is proper.

So what? How is this Plaintiff going to effectuate any judgment that he gets against a foreign company with no domestic assets? It seems a lot of this is driven by Colorado’s apportionment of liability statute, which does not permit recovery against any one tortfeasor in excess of the jury’s finding of liability. Moreover, a jury could consider the liability of any nonparty in the proceeding in its assessment of liability.