Articles Posted in Defective Products

An appeals court recently issued an opinion in a case that may have drastic consequences on Florida product liability lawsuits. The decision pertained to a case involving a plaintiff who filed a lawsuit against Amazon for injuries she suffered from a hoverboard she purchased on the website from a third-party seller. The court was tasked with determining whether Amazon could be held strictly liable for defective products on its site.

The massive online retailer argued that it was not liable for the victim’s injuries because Amazon merely operates as a service provider and not as the seller or supplier of the product. In support of its argument, Amazon argued that it did not possess any proactive authority over the item and could merely address safety issues after they had been reported.

Despite Amazon’s contentions, the court upheld previous decisions finding Amazon strictly liable for the defective product. The court reasoned that Amazon played a “pivotal” role in bringing the product to the consumer. Further, the court stated that Amazon would need to bear the consequences of its business model of placing itself in the vertical chain of distribution of the defective hoverboard.

A Florida federal court recently addressed a product liability claim against a medical device company and its parent company. The case arose when the plaintiff underwent surgery for her pelvic organ prolapse. Her physician implanted a polypropylene mesh designed by the defendants. After surgery, the woman experienced significant health issues that she attributed to the mesh device. Following the removal surgery, the woman and her husband filed a product liability claim against the defendants based on a failure to warn.

In response, the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the state’s learned intermediary doctrine. The doctrine imposes a duty on medical device manufacturers to warn of the product’s dangers to physicians instead of patients. In this case, the plaintiffs argue that the doctrine does not apply because the physician maintained a long-standing financial relationship with the defendants. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the defendants to expect the physician to warn patients of the device’s dangers. The plaintiffs asked the courts to create a “financial bias” exception to the state’s learned intermediary doctrine. The lower court declined to create such an exception and found in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed based on the failure-to-warn claim.

Under Florida law, plaintiffs pursuing a failure-to-warn claim must establish that the product’s warning was 1.) inadequate, 2.) the inadequacy approximately caused the victim’s injuries, and 3.) the victim suffered an injury from using the product. In cases involving a medical device, the physician acts as the “learned intermediary,” and it is their responsibility to weigh the device’s potential risks and benefits to their patients. For a plaintiff to succeed on a claim against the device manufacturer, they must prove that the doctor would not have used the product if the manufacturer included an adequate warning. Moreover, the chain may still be broken if the manufacturer provides an insufficient warning, so long as the doctor is aware and still recommends the device.

Contraceptives, such as intrauterine devices (IUD), undoubtedly provide women and families with life-changing benefits. However, in some cases, users may suffer severe and adverse side effects from these devices. Those who suffer injuries because of a defective medical device should contact a Florida products liability attorney to discuss their rights and remedies. In some cases, a person’s unique biological makeup may make them susceptible to side effects. However, in other cases, a manufacturing or design defect may make these medical devices unreasonably dangerous.

IUDs were introduced into the market in the 1950s, when the demand for effective birth control became more apparent. While there have been many advances to these devices since that time, there have also been significant injuries and lawsuits linked to these products. The most recent IUD lawsuit involves the Paraguard. According to consumers and medical providers, the plastic prongs at the end of the device become brittle over time and may snap off and become embedded and pierce the uterus. The design flaw has resulted in a wave of new IUD lawsuits throughout the country.

The majority of lawsuits associated with the Paraguard allege design defects, manufacturing defects, failure to warn claims, and negligence on the part of the manufacturers. Claimants argue that they had to undergo an invasive procedure to remove the arms of the device. Some women had to undergo hysteroscopies, laparoscopies, and even hysterectomies. In cases where surgeons could not retrieve the pieces, women suffered severe bleeding, spotting, pelvic inflammatory disease, infections, organ damage, and infertility. Despite these incidents and lawsuits, the device remains on the market. The manufacturers recalled one batch of devices related to sterility and not the design defect.

A leading market research company report indicates that global toy sales are a steadily increasing multi-billion-dollar industry. Every year, manufacturers release nearly 5,000 new toys into the consumer stream. Many of these products are fast-tracked with growing competition, leading to shoddily constructed and potentially dangerous toys. If a child suffers injuries because of a defective toy, their family may recover under Florida’s product liability laws.

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reports that over 200,000 children receive treatment at hospital emergency rooms because of injuries related to defective toys. In some cases, the child misuses the toy; however, many of these injuries are caused by the toy’s dangerous propensity. According to the most recent data published by the CPSC from 2018, there were 17 toy-related fatalities among children under 15-years-old. The majority of fatalities were related to non-motorized scooters. Other fatalities were related to motor vehicle involvement and drownings. The next set of toys involved were rubber balls, stuffed toys and doll accessories, and water toys. Other notable tragic deaths were related to balloon choking, plastic toy food, water guns, and toy dart guns. The report also shows there were almost 230,000 toy-related injuries for all ages treated in U.S. emergency rooms. Toy-related injuries can range in severity; however, many accidents lead to brain injuries, fractures, burns and puncture wounds. In some cases, these injuries can result in life-long disability and pain.

In light of this harrowing data and in conjunction with the influx of toys, many children received over the holidays, and during the lock down, parents should examine toys for potential hazards. If a child suffers an injury because of a defective product, Florida permits three main types of product liability lawsuits: manufacturing defect claims, design defect claims, and failure to warn claims.

The Home Depot recently issued a voluntary recall of an indoor/outdoor fan sold in their retail stores and online. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reported that they received nearly 50 reports of blades detaching from the fan. Those that have suffered injuries from a defective fan may have a Florida product liability claim. The Home Depot voluntarily announced the recall, stating that they stopped selling the products when they discovered the issue. It is unclear whether the detaching blade hit or injured individuals, but there have been reports that the blades caused property damage. According to the CPSC, about 182,000 fans were sold in the United States, and close to 9,000 were sold in Canada.

In Florida, manufacturers have a legal duty to ensure that their products are safe for consumers and those that use their products. When a person suffers an injury, or dies because of a defective product, they file a claim based on the company’s strict liability or negligence. Florida product liability claims require that a plaintiff establishes that they suffered an actual injury or monetary loss because of the product. These claims are generally based on the product’s defective design, manufacturer, or the fact that the manufacturer knew or should have known the risks and failed to warn users.

After establishing the injury and theory, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the alleged defect proximately caused their injuries and losses. Defendants often argue that they should not be liable because the plaintiff failed to use the product appropriately. As such, plaintiffs must establish that they used the product in a way that the manufacturer intended or should have expected a reasonable person to use it.

Individuals who wish to pursue damages after suffering injuries because of a defective product must be able to establish that the product was defectively designed, manufactured, or lacked appropriate instructions and warnings. Under Florida law, consumers may proceed under a negligence or strict liability theory. Although claims may involve both theories, strict liability governs Florida product liability lawsuits in most cases. Strict liability theory provides that a seller, distributor, manufacturer, or any other entity involved in distributing a product, may be liable to anyone who suffers injuries because of the product. Under this theory, defendants may still be liable, even if they engaged in all possible steps to ensure that the defect did not occur.

Product liability claimants must be able to prove that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, the product injured the plaintiff, and the product’s inherent design or defect was the direct cause of the claimant’s injuries. The crux of product liability cases rest in whether a plaintiff can present enough compelling evidence to show that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous to a reasonable, ordinary consumer. Evidence of a defective product may be the product itself. However, in some cases, the product may no longer exist. This may occur if it was a consumable product, such as a prescription medication or supplement, or if the consumer did not own the product. In either case, expert witnesses provide plaintiffs with critical assistance in explaining complex subjects to juries.

Expert witnesses can effectively communicate complex technical and scientific concepts to juries. These witnesses can testify on an injury victim’s behalf and convey convoluted theories in a clear and manageable way to the trier of fact. Some common expert witnesses are medical experts, engineers, rehabilitation specialists, and economists. Expert witness testimony is often the most compelling portion of a plaintiff’s case.

Florida consumers rightfully expect vehicle manufacturers and dealerships to maintain integrity in their dealings and ensure that vehicles are free from defects. However, despite due diligence, in some cases, motorists end up with a defective car. These vehicles are commonly referred to as “lemons.” Fortunately, federal and state laws protect consumers in these situations.

Florida’s “Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act,” or “Lemon Law,” protects customers who purchase new or nearly new vehicles. In some instances, the law protects consumers who lease vehicles or purchase a defective recreational vehicle. The law applies to vehicles purchased for personal, family, or household use. It extends to anyone to whom the vehicle is transferred for the same purposes during the statutory period. The statutory period is generally 24 months following delivery to the consumer. The law covers “nonconformities” to the vehicle, which substantially impairs the vehicle’s use, value, or safety. However, the law does not apply when the consumer’s negligence, abuse, or unauthorized alteration caused the defect.

Under the law, manufacturers that cannot adequately repair a defect, must repurchase or replace a vehicle. The law permits the manufacturer a reasonable number of attempts to repair the vehicle before mandating repurchase or repair. Generally, a manufacturer will have to repurchase after they unsuccessfully resolved the problems three or more times or if the car is in a repair shop for more than 30 days.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an opinion in a Florida product liability lawsuit. The case arose after a meat-market manager suffered injuries while using a meat saw. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the saw’s manufacturer, arguing that the meat saw was negligently designed. The court instructed the jury that the plaintiff needed to establish that the meat saw was not designed with “reasonable care” and was not “reasonably safe” for foreseeable use. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

In addition to other issues, the defendant appealed the jury’s ruling arguing that the court should not have provided the jury a general negligence instruction. Rather, the defendant argued that the court should have instructed the jury on Florida’s “risk utility” test or “consumer expectations” test.

Under Florida law, the risk utility test addresses and balances six considerations to determine whether a product’s risk outweighs its utility to consumers. If it does, the product is negligently designed. The six factors are: the likelihood of potential injury balanced against its utility, the availability of safer products that meet the same need, the obviousness of the danger and the public’s expectation of that danger, the adequacy of instructions and warning, and the ability to minimize the danger without impairing the product or making it economically unfeasible. On the other hand, the consumer expectations test focuses on if the product was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would anticipate.