Products Liability

April 26, 2010

Should You Ask for an Amount in Opening?

Paul Luvera discusses a tough issue for Plaintiff’s lawyers: do you clue the jury in during your opening statement how much you will ask for in closing? I struggle with this and often opt for a middle ground. I lay out the foundation of what I will ask for: medical bills, wages, and the formula I think is appropriate (x per day for the rest of her life). This way, I’m getting them used to the idea without having to spit out a number with no evidence.

As Paul points out, a one size fits all rule is difficult because each case depends on different facts. One critical question has to be considered: is the cap an issue? If what you have is a cap case and minimal or no economic damages, you can dial back on the damages argument which might help you avoid the risk of losing credibility. Because every time you ask for money – which is what a plaintiffs’ lawyer does by definition – you do lose some measure of credibility with a jury.

One issue in this post – raising the damage amount in voir dire – is not of much interest to Maryland personal injury lawyers because our voir dire is so ridiculously limited.

April 13, 2010

My Mediation Article with Judge Gordy

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Yesterday, the Maryland Daily Record published the first of a three-part series I wrote with retired Judge Clifton J. Gordy (now a mediator and arbitrator) on mediation in serious personal injury and wrongful death claims. The article is for both plaintiff and defense lawyers looking to make mediations as productive as possible. Look at yesterday’s article, and look in coming editions for the final two parts.

March 25, 2010

Ford Class Action Denied

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A Maryland District Court has denied a class action on behalf of Maryland residents who own certain model years of Ford Explorers, Mercury Mountaineers, and Ford Windstars.

This is not a personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed front seats in the class vehicles are defective because they are prone to collapse rearward in moderate speed rear-impact collisions. In fact, the proposed class action would exclude everyone who has suffered an injury.

The plaintiffs’ suggested class is individuals who own vehicles that cannot withstand 20,000 inch-pounds of torque without deforming backward. (Admittedly, I don’t fully understand this but let’s proceed on pretending that I do.)

March 23, 2010

Baltimore Lead Paint Lawsuit to Continue

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Appeals found today in a 5-2 opinion in a lead paint case that an individual member of a Maryland limited liability corporation (LLC) can be personally liable for torts committed on behalf of the LLC.

The case, Allen v. Dackman, is a classic Baltimore lead paint case, another saga in the tragedy of children suffering brain injuries as the result of ingesting chipping, flaking, and/or peeling lead-based paint.

The owner defendant sought refuge from personal liability because his acts were on behalf of his creatively named LLC, Hard Assets. The trial judge granted summary judgment. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Zarnoch, affirmed:

November 4, 2009

Subsequent Remedial Measures: New Opinion from Ohio

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Sean Wajert’s MassTort Defense Blog (c/o Torts Prof Blog) has an interesting post on a new opinion by the Iowa Supreme Court on whether you can admit subsequent remedial measures in cases that sound both in negligence and strict liability.

The Iowa court found that Plaintiff’s design defect and failure-to-warn claims involving the jack pin used on a boat trailer sound in negligence, rather than strict liability. Interpreting an Iowa law that, like Maryland’s law, is substantially similar to Federal Rule 407, the court held that Rule 5.407’s carve-out for strict liability in tort and breach of warranty claims does not apply to designed defect claims, but is intended only for product liability claims alleging a manufacturing defect.

Mr. Wajert supports the court’s holding in his blog post:

September 1, 2009

Maryland Motorcycle Accident Verdict Overturned

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

On Friday, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed a $3 million jury verdict in Cecil County v. Dorman. That statement over-magnifies the ruling. The jury verdict of $3 million is misleading because Maryland’s Local Government Tort Claim Act limited the actual verdict to $200,000. But the legal issues presented in the case interest Maryland accident attorneys who are looking for creative solutions to limited insurance coverage in catastrophic accident cases. This case closed down one potential defendant: the utility pole that has been there forever should not have been there when my client hit it.

The case involved a motorcycle accident that occurred near the intersection of Nottingham Road and Pulaski Highway (Route 40). Plaintiff suffered severe injuries that required the amputation of his right leg. The defendant driver’s negligence was not in serious question, but claims were maintained against Verizon and Delmarva Power and Light Company regarding the location of the utility pole that Plaintiff had hit, which had exacerbated Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the location of the pole was unsafe. Plaintiff’s accident lawyer further argued that is Cecil County’s duty to maintain its roadways in good repair and free from hazards or defects was ongoing so the fact that the pole had been put in 40 years ago was no defense. There is a duty imposed on Cecil County when a utility pole is in such proximity to the road that it was an “accident waiting to happen.” Continue reading

May 5, 2009

Medicare Liens

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

We can hold hands and agree with the Drug and Device Law Blog on few things related to drug and medical device litigation but this is one: we hate Medicare liens and the government is making life even more difficult for parties on both sides of the v. As usual, they have a very complete post laying out this issue, focused on the defense lawyers’ perspective but much of it applies to plaintiffs’ lawyers.

September 8, 2008

Average Wrongful Death Verdicts for Females: Age Is More Than a Number

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Interesting data from Jury Verdict Research on the median and average values of wrongful death cases where the decedent is female. The overall average compensatory award for wrongful death of an adult female over the last eight years in the United States is $2,990,032 ($1,102,976 is the median).

Age is a big variable when looking at median and average female wrongful death values. The average wrongful death verdict for a female between 18 and 24 is 2,990,032 ($1,102,976 median). For females between 30 and 39, women who are far more likely to have left behind children, the median wrongful death verdict escalates to $5,605,127 ($2,500,000 median). For women over 80, the average wrongful death verdict plummets to $1,314,241 (322,920 median).

I always find it maddening when insurance companies discount the value of human life in wrongful death cases because of the age of the decedent. If you are eighty years old and you are killed, those last 10 years of seeing your kids as adults, your grandchildren coming of age and everything else that comes with it are valuable years. But these numbers, regrettably, show that there is some logic to their thinking for how juries value wrongful death cases.

September 3, 2008

Plaintiffs’ Lawyer Are Committing Fraud and Defense Lawyers are Powerless to Stop It

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Mass Torts Blog, another defense lawyer blog brought to you by our friends at Dechert, posts on Labor Day about medical screening in mass tort cases. The allegations are basically that plaintiffs’ product liability lawyers are committing fraud when screening clients. Read the post for yourself and tell me that it is not a fair summary of what the post alleges.

It would be nice to have a more moderated voice coming from Dechert, a fantastic international law firm, as opposed to the defense lawyer version of Ann Coulter. But if what the Mass Tort Blog is saying is correct – that many plaintiffs who accepted settlements in the asbestos, silica, fen-phen, silicone breast implant, and welding fume litigations were fraudulent, manufactured claims – where were the defense lawyers to protect the defendants from this fraud?

Obviously, it was easy to make this determination, as Cardozo Law School Professor Lester Brickman had done in his study, which was relied upon in the Mass Torts Blog post. Were defense medical examinations a condition of settlement? Did they just blindly trust the plaintiffs’ lawyers? If this really is the case, shouldn’t we infer that all the defense lawyers who defended these cases committed legal malpractice?

August 25, 2008

Should Companies Be Required to Disclosure Expected Litigation Obligations in Product Cases?

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial with an anti products liability lawyer spin. No surprise. But what is surprising is that I agree with it.

Considering Enron and other business collapses that left stockholders holding the bag with no actual picture of the company’s financial condition, the Financial Accounting Standards Board wants to tighten standards. One requirement would make companies account for the potential cost of ongoing litigation not just regarding attorneys’ fees but regarding the actual value of the claims. The Wall Street Journal editorial says product liability lawyers will use the information to extort settlements and influence jury verdicts.

I’m not worried about either of those outcomes no matter how many times the editorial uses the phrase “extort settlements.” But I think there is a risk of forcing a defendant to publicly estimate settlement and verdict values because I think it tips off product liability lawyers and creates a floor for the value of any mass tort claim. I also think the editorial is correct, that predicting the trajectory of long and complex litigation is inherently unscientific. Mass tort cases are like the stock market in that their values are always changing. A good trial outcome or even a good expert deposition in an MDL can increase or decrease the value of a case. I’ve been involved with mass torts from both sides and believe knowledge of the true value is rarely known even to the insiders until the advanced stages of the settlement process.