Articles Posted in Defective Products

In a recent case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a product liability case between a plaintiff that purchased a motorcycle, and the defendant, a motorsports dealer. The plaintiff was injured riding the motorcycle shortly after purchasing it when the motorcycle spun out of control. He brought suit against the defendant for negligence during the assembly and servicing process as well as in a product liability capacity. Following the hearing, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s entire lawsuit based on an exculpatory clause contained within the sales contract that he signed when purchasing the motorcycle.

In 2018, the plaintiff purchased a Suzuki brand motorcycle from the defendant, signing a sales contract containing exculpatory language releasing the defendant dealer from liability. Shortly after buying the motorcycle, the plaintiff was involved in a serious accident and sustained serious bodily injuries. According to the plaintiff, as he was riding it, the front end of the motorcycle began to wobble and thrash, causing him to lose control and crash into another motor vehicle. Following the accident, he sued the defendant, claiming the dealer was negligent in assembling, setting up, servicing, repairing, and or inspecting the motorcycle prior to the sale. Additionally, the plaintiff sued the defendant in its capacity as a seller in the stream of commerce for strict product liability and negligent product liability arising out of manufacturing defects, design defects, and the failure to warn of those defects. At trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the defendant’s complaint based on the exculpatory clause he signed during the purchase. The plaintiff filed a response opposing the dismissal. The trial court subsequently granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s entire suit with prejudice based on the exculpatory clause.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues the trial court erred by dismissing the strict product liability counts because the exculpatory clause, due to its plain language, only applied to negligence-based claims. In the appellate court opinion, the appeals court found that much like the public policy driving Florida’s regulation behind licensing of building contractors and building construction standards, the public policy behind adopting the theory of strict liability is rooted in the concept of protecting the safety of consumers. As a result, the exculpatory clause, in this case, purporting to absolve a retailer of liability from strict liability in tort for injuries caused by defects in products it places on the market likewise violates public policy. As a result, the appellate court reversed the portion of the order dismissing the three strict product liability counts.

Companies or individuals that manufacture, market, or distribute consumer products in Florida have a duty to ensure that the products are safe for public use. If a person is injured or killed while using a dangerous product, the companies who manufactured or sold the product may be liable for damages stemming from the incident, however, many exceptions apply to this theory of liability. The Florida Court of Appeal recently denied a plaintiff’s claim against the manufacturer of a computer duster product that was misused and resulted in a car accident that injured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a man who was injured when a driver lost control of her vehicle and crashed into cars parked in his driveway, pinning him under a vehicle and resulting in serious injury. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman driving had recently purchased and inhaled a can of computer duster manufactured by the defendant corporation and sold by Walmart (also a defendant in the case). The woman admitted to using the computer duster to “get high,” and was charged with a felony DUI offense after the crash.

The accident victim sued the driver for negligence based on the injuries he suffered in the crash, and also sued both Walmart and the product manufacturer for designing, marketing, and selling a dangerous product. Using a strict liability theory of negligence, the plaintiff claimed that the manufacturer and seller of the computer duster could be held accountable for reasonably foreseeable conduct that resulted from selling the product, namely that it could be abused as an intoxicant. In response to the plaintiff’s claim, the defendants disputed their liability for the crash, arguing that strict liability should only apply if a person is using the product as intended by the manufacturer.

With mild, warm weather year-round, Florida residents are no stranger to commuting by electric bike or scooter to enjoy the sunshine without compromising mobility and efficiency. Many of these electric bikes or scooters, however, are operated by complex technology and lithium-ion batteries, which can come with risks of the bike or its parts being defective and potentially dangerous. When a piece of machinery like an electric scooter or bike causes injury because it has defective components by design or manufacturing error, those who are responsible must be held accountable for any resulting damage or injury.

According to a recent news report, a lithium-ion battery from an electric bike or scooter self-combusted in an apartment building, which caused a four-alarm fire. Local authorities responded to the fire in the middle of the night, where it was only extinguished three hours later with one firefighter sustaining minor injuries in the process. After an initial investigation, fire marshals determined that the fire was caused by a battery that burst into flames in a restaurant on the ground floor of the building. The fire then spread vertically through the building, reaching as far up as to damage apartments located on the top floor. The fire remains under investigation.

Although it is unclear what the make and model of the electric bike or scooter was, there has been a steady increase in fires caused by electric bikes recently. In New York, more than 100 fires were caused by these devices, which resulted in 79 injuries and four deaths in 2021 alone.

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.