Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update concerning developments in Product Liability and related law of interest to product manufacturers and sellers.
Included In This Update:
-
Massachusetts Federal District Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Failure-to-Warn Claim Involving Wall Heater Because Danger was Open and Obvious, and Against Design Defect Claim for Lack of Expert Testimony
-
Massachusetts Federal District Court Remands Pharmaceutical Failure-to-Warn Claim to State Court, Holding Defendant’s Argument that Claim Challenged FDA’s Authority to Approve Warning Raised Preemption Defense Rather than Demonstrated that Claim Arises Under Federal Law
-
Massachusetts Appeals Court Holds Employer’s Corporate Parent Cannot Be Held Vicariously Liable for Employer’s Allegedly Negligent Conduct Toward Employee Under Respondeat Superior Theory Where Suit Against Employer was Dismissed With Prejudice
-
Massachusetts Appeals Court Reverses Judgment for Plaintiff on Chapter 93A Claims Based on Inadequate Notice Where Trial Court Did Not Construe Complaint to Allege Chapter 93A Claims Until First Day of Trial
Excerpt:
Massachusetts Federal District Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Failure-to-Warn Claim Involving Wall Heater Because Danger was Open and Obvious, and Against Design Defect Claim for Lack of Expert Testimony
In Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Empire Comfort Systems, Inc., 2008 WL 3884342 (D. Mass. Aug. 22, 2008), a fire insurer, acting as subrogee of its insured hotel, sued the manufacturer of a gas-fired wall heater for negligent failure to warn and negligent design or manufacture; strict liability; breach of warranty; and breach of contract, all to recover damages caused by a fire that resulted when a hotel employee leaned a mattress against the heater. Defendant moved for summary judgment.
The court granted defendant’s motion as to plaintiff’s claim that the sticker on the heater warning of the danger of placing combustible items on or near the heater was inadequate due to its small size and that other English written warnings were inadequate to convey the danger to a non-Anglophone such as the hotel employee who precipitated the fire. The court noted that defendant had no duty to warn against open and obvious hazards. (continues...)
Download the Foley Hoag October 2008 Product Liability Update (.pdf)
For more information about the Product Liability and Complex Tort Practice Group, please contact Dave Geiger.