 |
Insurance
| Toxic
Torts | Drug
& Medical Devices | Intellectual
Property --
from MEALEY'S Product Liability & Risk November
3, 2003 Product Liability Punitive Award Reduced; Plaintiff To Decide Whether It's Enough SALEM, Ore. -- A plaintiff who won a jury verdict after she was seriously injured by a shattering fishbowl has less than four weeks to decide whether to accept remittitur of her punitive damages award or face a new trial to set the proper amount (Arleen E. Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc., No. A91012, Ore. App.). The case was back before the Oregon Court of Appeals after the U.S. Supreme Court, citing State Farm v. Campbell (538 U.S. __, 123 S. Ct. 1513 [2003]), vacated the $1 million award based on compensatory damages one-tenth the size. (Opinion. Document #49-031103-102Z.) Arleen E. Waddill was carrying a fishbowl containing water in her arms when the glass bowl shattered, slicing the ulnar artery, ulnar nerve and a tendon in her left arm and lacerating the index finger and an artery and nerve on her right hand. Waddill suffered lingering pain, numbness and weakness in her arms that her physician told her would be permanent. Waddill sued Anchor Hocking Inc., which made the fishbowl, complaining that the company failed to attach a warning to the fishbowl against carrying it when loaded with water. Anchor Hocking knew of three other incidents in which customers were injured in similar circumstances but did nothing to improve the product's safety and in fact destroyed records pertaining to those incidents, she alleged. A Multnomah County Circuit Court jury found that Anchor Hocking was negligent and that the fishbowl was dangerously defective because of the company's failure to affix an appropriate warning. It assessed actual damages of $132,472, reduced to $100,854 by the jury's finding that Waddill was 25 percent at fault, and awarded $1 million in punitive damages. A panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in its entirety, finding that the jury's decision to award punitive damages complied with both state and federal law, including the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari to Anchor Hocking, vacated the award and remanded to the appellate court for further consideration in light of State Farm. The panel concluded that the maximum constitutionally permissible award in the instant case was four times the compensatory damages, or $403,416. However, it offered Waddill the choice of accepting the reduced amount or consenting to a new trial to establish a more appropriate level of punitive damages. Copyright 2003, LexisNexis, Division of Reed Elsevier Inc., All Rights Reserved This story and the complete archive of Mealey's Litigation Reports including related court documents are available online by subscription or on a pay-per-view basis. Go to Mealeys Online.
from MEALEY'S Product Liability & Risk October
17, 2003 Microsoft Faces Class Action Over Allegedly Faulty Software LOS ANGELES -- The world's dominant software maker produces flawed programs and fails to adequately warn consumers of the potential that hackers may take advantage of the defects to wreak havoc on their computers, according to a putative class action filed Sept. 30 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Marcy Levitas Hamilton, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., et al., No. n/a, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.). (Complaint. Document #49-031017-101C.) Mary Levitas Hamilton, a Los Angeles film editor, sued Microsoft Corp. for what she claims are unfair business practices and violations of California statutory and common law. According to Hamilton, Microsoft's programs contain serious security flaws that could allow hackers to break into the computer system of an individual or corporation via computer viruses or worms, obtain confidential or personal information and exploit that information to the detriment of the system's owners. Microsoft's near-total supremacy in the software market means that up to 90 percent of all computer users are vulnerable, directly or indirectly, to cyber-attacks, Hamilton argues. Hamilton points to recent massive computer attacks and resulting network failures caused by viruses such as "Bugbear" and "SoBig.F" that allegedly exploit gaps in Microsoft programs' security to enable identity theft and denial-of-service attacks on overloaded e-mail servers. Hamilton claims to have been a victim of identity theft when her personal information, including her Social Security number, was hijacked and misused by a hacker. Additionally, Hamilton complains, Microsoft is aware of the problems with its software security yet fails to provide adequate notice of security breaches or sufficient information to enable a computer user to repair the flaws, despite a plethora of security alerts. The warnings Microsoft does provide actually assist the hackers more than consumers, she says. Copyright 2003, LexisNexis, Division of Reed Elsevier Inc., All Rights Reserved This story and the complete archive of Mealey's Litigation Reports including related court documents are available online by subscription or on a pay-per-view basis. Go to Mealeys Online.
______________________________________________________________ from MEALEY'S LITIGATION REPORT Construction Defects October 8, 2003 South Carolina City Sues For Construction Defects In 2 Fire Stations ISLE OF PALMS, S.C. -- The City of the Isle of Palms on Aug. 18 filed its second amended complaint against a construction company, alleging breach of contract in connection with the construction of two fire stations (City of Isle of Palms, South Carolina v. Descon Corporation of Charleston, et al., No. 03-CP-10-2925, S.C. Comm. Pls., Charleston Co.). (Complaint. Document #09-031008-102C.) The city sued Descon Corp. of Charleston, S.C., P. John DeStefano, J.E. Gardner and Associates Inc. and John E. Gardner in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, alleging breach of contract, negligence and breach of express and implied warranties. The city contends that the defendants constructed the fire stations in a defective manner, disregarding building codes and industry standards. Moreover, the city argues that the defendants failed to supervise and monitor the construction methods in building the stations which has rendered them "dangerously defective." Among the defects alleged are improperly constructed walls, faulty foundations, violation of local building codes and failure to use the degree of care and caution that a reasonably prudent person would have used in constructing the buildings. Copyright 2003, LexisNexis, Division of Reed Elsevier Inc., All Rights Reserved This story and the complete archive of Mealey's Litigation Reports including related court documents are available online by subscription or on a pay-per-view basis. Go to Mealeys Online.
from MEALEY'S LITIGATION REPORT Construction Defects Otcober 23, 2003 $236 Million Settlement Reached In Defective Heating Hoses Class Action TRENTON, N.J. -- A federal judge on Oct. 9 approved a $236 million settlement between the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and plaintiffs in the United States and Canada who claimed that the company supplied defective hoses for radiant heating called Entran II (Donato Galanti, et al. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, No. 03209, D. N.J.). The settlement, preliminarily approved by U.S. Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey, does not include claimants living in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. Goodyear agreed to make cash payments of $196 million over five years into a settlement account for the U.S. class and members of a separate class of Canadian property owners. The settlement provides for additional payments of up to $40 million contingent upon Goodyear's future performance. Depending on the number of claims, class counsel estimate that some class members may receive as much as 30 percent of the cost of repairs and/or replacement of their Entran II. The class members alleged that Goodyear manufactured defective Entran II -- also known as Twintran, Nytrace, Entran II Trace, Entran II Wire, Entran 2, Entran 2Trace and Entran 2 Wire -- for radiant heating and snow melting systems that is prone to leaks when operated under normal conditions. Copyright 2003, LexisNexis, Division of Reed Elsevier Inc., All Rights Reserved This story and the complete archive of Mealey's Litigation Reports including related court documents are available online by subscription or on a pay-per-view basis. Go to Mealeys Online.
______________________________________________________________ |
