Case Notes

Jury Must Allocate Liability Among Multiple Corporate Defendants

Where multiple defendants exist, a jury shall allocate a percentage of liability to each defendant, even if only one product is the subject of the lawsuit. Allied Signal, Inc. v. Moran, Number 13-00-00537-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, 13th District, Corpus Christi, August 27, 2003.

Bart Moran's 1997 Dodge Caravan minivan was struck by another vehicle, driven by Luvh Rahke. The collision caused the minivan to roll over and Moran was ejected from the seat, later dying from fatal injuries related to the accident. His wife sued Rahke, Daimler Chrysler and Allied Signal for negligence and product liability. She claimed that the seat belt the decedent wore during the accident was defective because it released inadvertently after the car rolled over and the decedent's hand or arm came into contact with the seat belt buckle. The two corporate defendants offered conflicting evidence regarding which company was ultimately responsible for the design of the seat belt. After instruction from the trial court, the jury returned a verdict that the defendant Rahke was 1% responsible for the decedent's death and “the seat belt buckle” was 99% responsible for the decedent's death. The corporate defendants were each found jointly and severally liable without apportioning responsibility between them. Each corporate defendant appealed, arguing that the jury charge was improper because the trial court failed to instruct the jury to submit each corporate defendant's percentage of responsibility under the Texas Civil Practice Code. The appellate court reviewed the matter de novo and held that the jury charge was improper. It held that where there are multiple defendants, the finder of fact must allocate the percentage of liability to each defendant, not only with regard to the subject product. Failure to do so will result in logistical problems concerning the plaintiff's recovery. Furthermore, under the Texas Civil Practice Code, a defendant may be found jointly and severally liable only if the defendant is found to be greater than 50% responsible. In this case, both defendants could not be held jointly and severally liable because they could not both be greater than 50% liable. The appellate court noted that it is not always improper to charge the jury with regard to a subject product; only if there are multiple defendants regarding the same product is there a problem.

Strict Liability Standard for Manufacturing Defect in Breast Implants

A strict liability jury instruction should be given on a claim alleging a manufacturing defect in breast implants. Transue v. Aesthetech Corp., No. 01-35773, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, August 27, 2003.

In 1985, Lana Transue received silicone breast implants manufactured by Medical Engineering Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). In 1994, Transue sued BMS, alleging that the implants ruptured inside of her body, causing tissue death, scarring, pain, and permanent silicone contamination of her body and seeking damages caused by the allegedly defective silicone breast implants. Transue opted out of the Multidistrict Litigation and sued in state court. She claimed, inter alia, that the implants were defectively manufactured. After a jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants on all of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury instruction was improper. She argued that the jury was instructed on negligence, not strict liability, regarding the manufacture of the breast implants. The appellate court reviewed the jury charge de novo, and held that the trial court should have instructed the jury to use a strict liability standard with regard to the plaintiff's manufacturing defect claim. The defendant argued that under comment k to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, '402A, medical devices such as breast implants are exempted from strict liability design and defect claims. The appellate court disagreed. It held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's request for a strict liability jury instruction and remanded the matter for a new trial. Although the appellate court concluded that comment k does provide blanket exception to medical devices – including breast implants – it does not provide protection for manufacturing defect claims based upon unavoidably unsafe products. It reasoned that comment k presupposes that the unavoidably unsafe product was properly prepared and marketed. The jury should have been permitted to consider whether the breast implants were properly prepared and marketed under a strict liability theory.

The publisher of this newsletter is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional services, and this publication is not meant to constitute legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional advice. If legal, financial, investment advisory or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Jury Must Allocate Liability Among Multiple Corporate Defendants

Where multiple defendants exist, a jury shall allocate a percentage of liability to each defendant, even if only one product is the subject of the lawsuit. Allied Signal, Inc. v. Moran, Number 13-00-00537-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, 13th District, Corpus Christi, August 27, 2003.

Bart Moran's 1997 Dodge Caravan minivan was struck by another vehicle, driven by Luvh Rahke. The collision caused the minivan to roll over and Moran was ejected from the seat, later dying from fatal injuries related to the accident. His wife sued Rahke, Daimler Chrysler and Allied Signal for negligence and product liability. She claimed that the seat belt the decedent wore during the accident was defective because it released inadvertently after the car rolled over and the decedent's hand or arm came into contact with the seat belt buckle. The two corporate defendants offered conflicting evidence regarding which company was ultimately responsible for the design of the seat belt. After instruction from the trial court, the jury returned a verdict that the defendant Rahke was 1% responsible for the decedent's death and “the seat belt buckle” was 99% responsible for the decedent's death. The corporate defendants were each found jointly and severally liable without apportioning responsibility between them. Each corporate defendant appealed, arguing that the jury charge was improper because the trial court failed to instruct the jury to submit each corporate defendant's percentage of responsibility under the Texas Civil Practice Code. The appellate court reviewed the matter de novo and held that the jury charge was improper. It held that where there are multiple defendants, the finder of fact must allocate the percentage of liability to each defendant, not only with regard to the subject product. Failure to do so will result in logistical problems concerning the plaintiff's recovery. Furthermore, under the Texas Civil Practice Code, a defendant may be found jointly and severally liable only if the defendant is found to be greater than 50% responsible. In this case, both defendants could not be held jointly and severally liable because they could not both be greater than 50% liable. The appellate court noted that it is not always improper to charge the jury with regard to a subject product; only if there are multiple defendants regarding the same product is there a problem.

Strict Liability Standard for Manufacturing Defect in Breast Implants

A strict liability jury instruction should be given on a claim alleging a manufacturing defect in breast implants. Transue v. Aesthetech Corp., No. 01-35773, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, August 27, 2003.

In 1985, Lana Transue received silicone breast implants manufactured by Medical Engineering Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). In 1994, Transue sued BMS, alleging that the implants ruptured inside of her body, causing tissue death, scarring, pain, and permanent silicone contamination of her body and seeking damages caused by the allegedly defective silicone breast implants. Transue opted out of the Multidistrict Litigation and sued in state court. She claimed, inter alia, that the implants were defectively manufactured. After a jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants on all of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury instruction was improper. She argued that the jury was instructed on negligence, not strict liability, regarding the manufacture of the breast implants. The appellate court reviewed the jury charge de novo, and held that the trial court should have instructed the jury to use a strict liability standard with regard to the plaintiff's manufacturing defect claim. The defendant argued that under comment k to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, '402A, medical devices such as breast implants are exempted from strict liability design and defect claims. The appellate court disagreed. It held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's request for a strict liability jury instruction and remanded the matter for a new trial. Although the appellate court concluded that comment k does provide blanket exception to medical devices – including breast implants – it does not provide protection for manufacturing defect claims based upon unavoidably unsafe products. It reasoned that comment k presupposes that the unavoidably unsafe product was properly prepared and marketed. The jury should have been permitted to consider whether the breast implants were properly prepared and marketed under a strict liability theory.

The publisher of this newsletter is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional services, and this publication is not meant to constitute legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional advice. If legal, financial, investment advisory or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.