As lawyers practicing in the neat little world of products liability, we sometimes become complacent with our narrow world, which is more often than not populated by familiar concepts like strict liability, state of the art, and warranty disclaimers.  We’re comfortable with these concepts.  We use them every day, and we can recite by name and sometimes even citation the cases that stand for those fabled and familiar principles. But every once in a while, a case comes along that requires us to leave our comfort zone and do what our law school professors challenged us to do: think outside the realm of the class in which we were sitting at that moment, and reach into concepts we (at least arguably) learned from other classes.

This was the situation facing the defense lawyers in the case Armedi v. BAE Sys., Inc., 1:10-CV-01557-JOF, 2011 WL 1707251 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 22, 2011).  The case involved the unfortunate death of Rebar Amedi, a civilian contractor working as a translator for the U.S. Army in Iraq.  Mr. Amedi was killed when the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (“MRAP”) vehicle called a Caiman in which he was riding was struck by an improvised explosive device, commonly known as an IED.  According to the facts agreed to by the parties:

There were eight occupants in the passenger compartment of the Caiman which was designed to hold only six people. None of the occupants wore a seat belt and the doors to the compartment were not combat locked. The equipment stored in the MRAP was secured only by bungee cords and parachute cord, instead of ratcheting straps. Even though the passenger compartment was intact, the rear doors came off and it appears that Mr. Amedi was thrown from the vehicle and he sustained fatal injuries.

Mr. Armedi’s widow brought suit against BAE Systems, Inc., BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P.; and BAE Systems Tactical Vehicle Systems LP, on April 16, 2010, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, alleging product defect, negligence, and breach of warranty claims arising out of the death of Mr. Amedi.  The case was removed by the defendants, and they immediately filed a motion to dismiss not based on defenses they learned in products class, but based on the political question doctrine and the combatant activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

We will spare your digging through your home library for that dusty Con Law book, and remind you about the factors relevant to determining if a dispute raises a “non-justiciable political question.”  If only one of the factors is present, the court dismisses the case.  Those factors are:

Ah, the smell of diacetyl in the morning.  The mere sight of this buttery-flavored chemical makes our mouths water.

As we blogged about previously here and here, the wonderful smell this delectable combination of molecules creates has an unfortunate medical side effect – bronciolitis obliterans – otherwise now known as “popcorn lung.”  According to this piece at AboutLawsuits.com, a Baltimore County, Maryland jury recently awarded Brian Hallock, an employee of a popcorn plant owned by McCormick & Co., $5.4 million in a case he brought against Polarome International Inc. for failing to warn of the dangers of inhaling diacetyl.  That award was reduced to $814,500 pursuant to Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages. (Hat tip: Thanks to Professor Bernabe for alerting us to the verdict.).

Speaking of non-economic damages, several states have undergone debates about caps on damages in various tort reform bills in the last legislative year.  Our beloved South Carolina recently passed a tort reform bill which focused on instituting a cap on punitive damages.  You can read more about the Herculean efforts to get this passed, as well as the results, from our friend Brian Comer of South Carolina Product Liability Blog, both here and here.  Tennessee has also sent a new tort reform bill to its governor for signing.  Read about the ins and outs of that soon-to-be-law here.  Hopefully, these new laws will result in more court-instituted reductions on plaintiff-happy jury awards.  To be continued.

To be a good expert witness, a person should be extremely knowledgeable about the subject upon which he or she is opining.  The expert should preferably have a nice balance of practical and academic experience in his or her field, be good looking, well spoken, and able to articulate complex theories into easy to understand, layman’s terms. Oh, and one more thing.  The expert should probably wait until after he or she conducts testing on the product at issue in a case to draft his or her expert report.

In Cannioto v. Louisville Ladder, No. 8:09-CV-1892-T-30TBM, 2011 WL 2014260 (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2011), the plaintiff Robert Cannioto was allegedly injured when the 24-foot ladder he was standing on performing roofing work failed, causing him to plummet 16 to 18 feet to the ground.  The ladder was manufactured by LL. Cannioto and Home Depot, and Mr. Cannioto and his wife Bonnie Cannioto sued these two companies on theories of (1) strict liability against Louisville Ladder; (2) negligence of Louisville Ladder; (3) strict liability against Home Depot; (4) negligence of Home Depot; and (5) loss of consortium against Louisville Ladder.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Charles Benedict, and for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs hired Dr. Bendedict to render an opinion for them about the design and condition of the ladder at issue in the case.  Obviously, the plaintiffs wanted him to say there was something wrong with the ladder.  So, he did, writing a report in which he opined that the ladder was defectively designed.

Unfortunately, Dr. Benedict couldn’t quite get his tests, conducted after he wrote the report, to match his “findings” that the ladder was defectively designed:

In an attempt to prove his theory that the ladder failed as a result of the effect of torsional forces on a defectively designed foot, Benedict had one of his engineers set up a 24–foot extension ladder . . . in a manner similar to the one used by Plaintiff. He then had the engineer stand on the tenth rung of the fly or extended section of the ladder and violently jerk the left rail for almost 10 minutes in an effort to get the ladder to fail. The engineer also set the ladder on uneven ground and placed large weights near one of the feet in an effort to get the rail to fracture. Benedict’s assistants were unable to get the ladder rail to bend or break during the tests.

Don’t you hate when that happens?  So, the expert changed his theory from design defect to manufacturing defect.  In the middle of his deposition.  Without conducting any testing at all on the theory.

During his deposition, Benedict offered a new theory, one about a manufacturing defect rather than a design defect, as to why the subject ladder failed. He testified that the rungs were not properly or adequately attached to the rail and that the rung pulled out. This theory was not in Benedict’s expert report and Benedict admitted that he had not performed any testing to support this theory.

Last week, we heard an NPR story about a Wacky Warning Label Contest put on by a man named Bob Dorigo Jones, a Senior Fellow at the Center for America.  According to its website, the Center for America’s mission is “to educate, motivate, and empower Americans to expand skills, entrepreneurship, prosperity and freedom.”

The contest works like this:  People submit entries for the product warning labels which “entertain[] and alarm[] the nation about the lawsuit-happy culture and the lengths to which companies must go to avoid lawsuits.”  People can venture online and vote for their favorites, and there are even cash prizes for the contest winners.  We here at Abnormal Use like the concept of this contest: highlighting the ridiculous lengths to which manufacturers must go to protect themselves from lawsuits, and to protect people from their own lack of common sense.

For instance, here is one of the finalists:

You can view all of this year’s finalists here.  The contest has been going on for fourteen years.  Some information about the 2010 contest can be found here.  The winners of the 2011 contest will be announced in June.  We can’t wait, and we’ll be sure to let you know which warning label wins.  In the meantime, we’d like to hear your thoughts about the most absurd warning labels you’ve encountered, either as a consumer or legal professional.

Last month’s Mwesigwa v. DAP, Inc., —F.3d—, 2011 WL 1584760 (8th Cir., April 28, 2011) [PDF] centered around the warnings on a can of DAP Weldwood Gel Formula Contact Cement. The cement is a construction adhesive, and the can looks harmless enough:The warnings on the can, however, tell a different story and were cited extensively by the Court, which described the instructions as follows:

“WARNING! FLAMMABLE! VAPORS HARMFUL AND MAY CAUSE FLASH FIRE” and “BEFORE USE TURN OFF MAIN GAS VALVE.” The lid further instructs the user to keep the product away from heat, electrical sparks, and flame; to shut off pilot lights; to refrain from smoking; to prevent buildup of vapors by opening windows and doors; and to shut off stoves, heaters, and appliances. In addition, the lid depicts an open can with vapors emanating toward a cigarette labeled “smoking,” a gas valve labeled “gas,” a flame labeled “flame/heat,” and electrical volts labeled
“electricity/sparks.” Each of the four pictures contain a bold red line crossed through the black-and-white image.The can further includes “Precautionary measures for use, handling, storage and disposal”:Use in a well ventilated area. Provide fresh air such that chemical odors cannot be detected during use and while drying. Vapors are heavier than air and will collect in low areas. Check all low areas (basements, sumps, etc.) for vapor before entering. Vapor may ignite explosively. Keep away from heat, sparks, and flames. Do not smoke. Extinguish all flames and pilot lights. Turn off stoves, heaters, electric motors and other sources of ignition during use and until all vapor is gone. Keep container closed when not in use. Do not reuse the empty container. Do not use in areas where static electric sparks may be generated. Empty container may contain explosive vapors. Do not weld, cut or torch on or near this container. Store away from oxidizers and caustics. Wear gloves. Avoid skin contact. Wear eye protection with side shields.

The can also included the following warnings: “DANGER! FLAMMABLE LIQUID AND VAPOR HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED,” “VAPOR HARMFUL,” “BEFORE USE TURN OFF MAIN GAS VALVE,” “VAPORS CAN TRAVEL ALONG FLOOR TO ANY SOURCE OF HEAT, SPARK OR FLAME IN NEXT ROOM OR BASEMENT .”

Obviously, when not handled properly, this product can have grave consequences. The plaintiff’s decedent in this case unfortunately learned this fact first-hand. He purchased a can to install new baseboards in his house, and accidentally spilled some of it in his laundry room. When he went to wipe it up, the vapors ignited and caused a flash fire. Mr. Mwesigwa suffered extensive burns and died because of his injuries. His widow and children sued the manufacturer, DAP, for (1) wrongful death on theories of negligence, strict liability, and failure to warn; (2) for negligent misrepresentation; and (3) for violations of the Consumer Product Safety Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DAP. The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment on the wrongful death failure to warn claims.

The Court did a nice job summarizing its findings in this way: “The label complies with the FHSA because the principal hazard to be avoided is flammability, and the way to avoid that hazard is to remove all potential ignition sources.” Because the extensive labeling on the can of DAP complied with those requirements, summary judgment was affirmed as to the failure to warn claims.

In Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 2011 WL 1466393 (Ct. App. Minn. April 19, 2011) [PDF], the Minnesota Court of Appeals considered how far a manufacturer’s duty to warn extends in the context of piloting an aircraft. In so doing, the court found that any such duty does not extend so far as to require the manufacturer to provide pilot training.

“It threatens to extract significant competitive harm on extremely vulnerable pregnant women, and it threatens to significantly inflate health-care costs at a time when controlling health-care costs is a critical national priority,” said David Balto, a Washington antitrust lawyer who worked at the FTC.

This is an issue that will continue to force some tough choices. And, cynical though it may seem, we are certain that litigation about this very issue is inevitable, if not with this drug than with the next one down the line.

As a defense lawyer, we are often place in the strange position of having to prove a negative. Sure, it’s supposed to be the plaintiffs’ burden to prove his or her case, and in theory, at least, everyone is innocent, er, not liable unless proven otherwise.