As we recently reported here, this summer the Kellogg Company voluntarily recalled boxes of its Corn Pops, Honey Smacks, Froot Loops, and Apple Jacks due to “an off-flavor and odor” emanating from the cereal. We can’t believe that Toucan Sam, who always seems to be bragging about his nose, missed those foul-smelling boxes.

The FDA recently provided an update on the recall, explaining that the culprit causing the bad smell and taste appeared to be the wax paper liners in the boxes. According to the FDA, only about 50 reports of the foul smell were reported, and no one sustained a serious injury. One of the question-and-answer notes in the update caught our eye:

Are Waxed Papers Legal and Safe to Use in Food Packaging?
Yes, but only when they are manufactured and used in compliance with Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requirements and FDA regulations.

It comes as a reminder that the FDA does not only regulate the food on our shelves, but also its packaging, known in government-speak as “Food Contact Substances.” Other items with which you may be familiar in terms of the regulation of packaging that comes into contact with food include the debate that rages concerning the level of Bisphenol A, also known as “BPA,” in plastic containers and baby bottles.

More information about the regulation can be found on the FDA website page devoted to the wide world of packaging. In the meantime, we can apparently eat our favorite sugary cereal without first subjecting it to the smell test.

Personal representatives in South Carolina cannot recover damages for those last few seconds of life when their decedent knew for a fact that they would die. Last week, the South Carolina Court of Appeals rejected a Plaintiff’s ability to recover damages for “pre-impact fear.” See Rutland v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., No. 4721 (S.C. Aug. 4, 2010).

That case involved a wrongful death action brought by the personal representative of the estate of a passenger killed following a highway automobile accident during a heavy rain storm. The Plaintiff sued various defendants, but all but the Department of Transportation settled out before the trial. (It’s unclear from the facts of the opinion what the Plaintiff’s theory of recovery was against the State.). The jury awarded the Plaintiff $300,000, but the trial court granted the Department’s post trial motion for set-off and reduced the verdict to zero.

The Plaintiff appealed. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed various appellate points, but it is the Plaintiff’s second appellate point that is of interest. The Plaintiff had argued that “pre-impact” fear was recoverable in a South Carolina survival action “when the decedent suffered mental trauma before actual physical injury resulting in the decedent’s death.”

Citing some recent federal authority, and distinguishing an 80 year old case the Plaintiff had invoked in support of his theory, the Court of Appeals disagreed, noting as follows:

South Carolina does not recognize “pre-impact fear” as a compensable cause of action. See Hoskins v. King, 676 F. Supp. 2d 441, 451 (D.S.C. 2009) (concluding South Carolina law does not permit recovery for pre-impact fright). Also, we decline to extend the holding in [Spaugh v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. Co., 158 S.C. 25, 155 S.E. 145 (1930)] for the proposition that “pre-impact fear” is recoverable in this State.

In Hoskins, a case involving a cyclist killed after an automobile accident, Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. had found that there was no support in South Carolina law for the recovery of such damages:

However, in addition to seeking the more established post-impact survival damages, Hoskins seeks damages for the split-second between when the rear tire of the bicycle touched the front bumper of the Pacifica and the impact of Thomas Hoskins on the windshield. However, this position does not find support under South Carolina law. Hoskins has cited many cases, from other jurisdictions which recognize recovery for pre-impact fright. In nearly all of these cases the victims knew they were going to die for a period of at least some seconds, not fractions of a second. Moreover, there was evidence in almost all of the cases that the victim saw their ending coming and there was no question that the victim consciously perceived the cause of his or her death-such as a car crashing in to the back of a tractor trailer, an imminent plane crash, or a pedestrian trapped on roadway.

In this case the King’s car closed from the rear at a high rate of speed, causing a tremendous impact-throwing Thomas Hoskins seventy-five feet in the air-and instantly killing him. A survival claim requires that the deceased consciously endure pain and suffering. Due to the severity of the impact, the court finds that the evidence does not demonstrate that the decedent had time to consciously perceive the means of his death, much less consciously suffer pain.

Further, the Court of Appeals had distinguished Hough as a case involving “a woman who became physically ill after experiencing a nervous breakdown when she was stranded by a train company” and that in that case the South Carolina Supreme Court had determined that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff had actually suffered “bodily injury.”

A judicial candidate in Florida may not personally promote his or her campaign on Facebook, says the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee in a recent opinion. However, the opinion does note that a committee working on behalf of the judicial campaign may establish such a Facebook presence; it’s just that the judge may not do so in his or her own personal capacity. (Hat tip: The Legal Profession Blog).

Hold onto your hats: The Workplace Prof Blog informs us that a new edition of The Bluebook has been published. Ah, The Bluebook. It will forever remind of those halcyon law school days when we performed citation checks on articles assigned to us by our law review editors.

The Detroit Free Press has a great article about crazy statutes still on the books. (Hat tip: The Business Law Prof Blog). Our favorite? It is illegal in Clawson to throw a snowball. Someday, perhaps, we’ll do a similar analysis of South Carolina laws.

We hope this one doesn’t go to litigation. The DRI Blog has a post entitled “Frozen Reptile Food Poses Salmonella Risk to Snake Owners.” Yikes. We’re at a loss.

Overlawyered reports on the interplay between the ADA and South Carolina courthouses.

You know him well. He is the professional expert. No matter the issue, the case, or the product, there he is, opining that your client’s product is unreasonably dangerous, and unquestionably caused the plaintiff to suffer personal injuries, psychological damage, and lost income. In fact, as soon as you see this expert’s name at the top of the report, you can recite its contents, eyes closed and one hand tied behind your back.

Not so fast. In Beam v. McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing, Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (N.D. Ala. 2010), the Northern District of Alabama considered the defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. L.D. Ryan, a mechanical engineer and professional expert, as to the defectiveness of the design of a garbage truck. The case involved an accident in which the plaintiff’s decedent, a garbage collector, fell or stepped off of the riding step of a garbage truck and died as a result of his injuries. The central issue of the case was whether the truck was defectively designed with regard to the riding steps.

The court carefully considered Dr. Ryan’s qualifications, noting that “Plaintiff’s expert . . . has little or no experience in the world of refuse collection, road-vehicle design generally, or garbage truck design specifically.” Furthermore, although Dr. Ryan had watched “three hours of videos on ‘YouTube,’ he has no training or experience in designing waste-hauling routes” and has no knowledge “about the history or evolution of rear-loading garbage-truck designs.” In fact, the court stated, the “mere fact that Dr. Ryan is a licensed engineer is, in and of itself, insufficeint to qualitgy him as an expert in this case.”

The court’s harshest criticism of Dr. Ryan’s so-called qualifications, however, was reserved for his status as the professional expert. The court made several references to the fact that Dr. Ryan had acted as an expert in hundreds of cases. In fact, the court devoted an entire footnote to Dr. Ryan’s career expertise, opining that “Dr. Ryan has been involved in hundreds of cases invovling a variety of products, and his testimony has been at issue in a number of those cases,” and providing a list of some of those cases.

With no actual expertise on the subject of garbage truck design, the court excluded Dr. Ryan and his reports. Without expert testimony as to the defective design, the plaintiff could not make her case, and therefore the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was also granted.

Bravo, Northern District of Alabama. Abnormal Use salutes you. Next time, plaintiffs, make sure your expert does more than watch YouTube.

Important to the Court’s analysis was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s withdrawal of a proposed rulemaking. The NHTSA contemplated authoring rules in the early 1990s requiring laminated glass to be used for side windows in vehicles. After studying the matter, the NHTSA withdrew its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, and cited its study that the use of laminated glass increased the chances of injury to restrained occupants. See Notice of Withdrawal, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,365. The Court then examined three recent opinions from the Fifth Circuit, the West Virginia Supreme court, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals examining the potential preemption of Regulation 205. The state court opinions were driven by Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), which found that Regulation 208 had preemptive effect. Following the state court decisions, it seems that the NHTSA’s withdrawal was the crucial factor:

Because the federal government authorized that choice, Regulation 205 must preempt a state claim. Note, however, that the Court footnoted the Foreword to ANS Z26, which does not support a finding of preemption, but the Foreword “is not part of” ANS Z26.

The Fifth Circuit decision in O’Hara v. General Motors Corp., 508 F.3d 753 (2007) went the other way. O’Hara reasoned that the NHTSA’s notice of withdrawal did not operate as a rejection of laminate glass in side windows. Moreover, the language of Regulation 208 “strongly supports the conclusion that it expresses a federal policy,” while Regulation 205 did not. Therefore, Regulation 205 was best understood as a minimum safety standard, leaving states free to regulate via tort.

The South Carolina Supreme Court footnoted multiple cases in which courts have dealt with the preemptive effect of Regulation 205. Although it seems both sides have valid arguments, there is the underlying current of rewarding risky behavior in not finding preemption. That is, laminate glass can protect unrestrained occupants from being ejected from a vehicle. Does a court really want to reward a risk-taking plaintiff by denying a defendant the defense of preemption. O’Hara involved the claims of a minor, so perhaps she was a more sympathetic plaintiff. At any rate, be aware of the split of authority, and look for the United States Supreme Court to take a Regulation 205 case on certiorari.

• Eric Goldman of the Technology and Marketing Blog has this post, entitled “Private Facebook Group’s Conversations Aren’t Defamatory.” In so doing, he profiles the recent case of Finkel v. Dauber, 2010 WL 2872874 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 22, 2010), in which the court was called upon to review a private group started by a group of puerile high school students and dedicated to making fun of a classmate, who brought suit for defamation. Goldman notes that “the group’s discussion is embarrassingly puerile and hearkens back to John Hughes’ bleak depictions of high school life.” Ah, high school.
• The Tex Parte Blog has this post about the perils of attorneys attempting to follow up with an appellate court about the release of an overdue opinion. Apparently, counsel for the Plaintiff contacted with the Texas Supreme Court to inquire about a matter which had been pending before the court for four years. Eight days after the request was made, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion and ruled against the Plaintiff.
• The title of this post at the Legal Profession Blog, “After Failed Witchcraft, Client in Love With Attorney Sought Hit Man to Murder His Wife,” says it all. A must read. Who knew workers compensation litigation could be so dangerous?
• The North Carolina Business Litigation Report has this post entitled “A Tale of Reluctant Reconsideration in the Business Court.” In that post , author John Buford tells of a recent case in which the North Carolina Business Court “reconsidered and reversed the prior dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty claim, but the principles it outlined should not give litigants high hopes for reconsideration motions in general.”
• And, no, we here at Abnormal Use have still not yet seen Inception. Well, contributor Kevin Couch has, but he is under strict orders not to reveal any spoilers.