A Texas appeals court has dismissed product liability and negligence claims filed by a woman injured when she was struck twice in the face with a longneck beer bottle during a birthday celebration at a bar known for its violence. Gann v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No. 08-00017 (Tex. App., 8th Dist., July 25, 2012). Affirming the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the appeals court determined that the plaintiff “failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence that the longneck bottle was defectively designed so as to render it unreasonably dangerous and failed to establish that Appellees owned her a legal duty to protect her from the criminal acts of a third person.” Specifically, the court found insufficient evidence that the risk of injury from the bottle’s design outweighs its utility despite the plaintiff’s assertions that “beer bottles are used commonly in assaults in the local…
Category Archives State Courts
A company that supplies specialty ingredients such as vitamins, chemicals and carotenoids to food producers has sued one of its suppliers, alleging that the company was forced to recall from customers more than 33,000 pounds of chromium amino acid chelate after learning that it contained a milk allergen. DSM Nutritional Prods., LLC v. Triarco Indus., Inc., No. C1928-12 (N.J. Super Ct., Morris Cty., filed July 26, 2012). The plaintiff also allegedly reported the matter to the Food and Drug Administration through the Reportable Food Registry. According to the complaint, in 2009, the defendant completed a questionnaire designed to inform the plaintiff “of the existence of any allergens or their derivatives contained in the product” sold to the plaintiff. “Not until July 27, 2010,” however, “did Defendant correctly label the product as containing a hydrolyzed milk protein, thus advising [the plaintiff] that Defendant’s product contained a milk allergen.” Alleging breach of contract…
Seeking to represent everyone who purchased a mahi mahi dish in Sharky’s Woodfired Mexican Grills throughout California, four Los Angeles County residents have filed suit alleging that the menu items do not contain mahi mahi fish as advertised. Chenier v. Sharky’s Franchise Group, LLC, No. 30-2012-00587784 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed July 31, 2012). The plaintiffs claim that they would not have purchased the products had they known the products were not made with mahi mahi. They allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty, and seek disgorgement, restitution, public disclosure, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
According to a news source, a Los Angeles Superior Court has dismissed a putative class action seeking damages against One World Enterprises LLC for allegedly misleading consumers about the nutritional value and hydrating properties of its coconut water product. Shenkman v. One World Enters. LLC, No. BC467165 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., dismissed on July 18, 2012). The court apparently agreed with the defendant that part of the plaintiff’s case involved a product representation that was simply “puffery” and stated that marketing a product’s “superior” hydrating power “is not actionable because consumers are used to hearing advertisers make general boasts and were not born yesterday.” The court dismissed the case without prejudice to give the plaintiff an opportunity to replead state-based fraud and false advertising claims about the product’s allegedly false nutritional label. According to the court, the plaintiff “correctly notes federal law will not preempt his claim if the label…
Responding to a question certified by a federal district court, a divided Montana Supreme Court has said that obesity which is not the symptom of a physiological condition may be a “physical or mental impairment” as the terms are used in the Montana Human Rights Act. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, No. OP 11-0463 (Mont., decided July 6, 2012). The issue arose after an extremely obese applicant for a conductor-trainee position was told he would not be considered for the position unless he lost 10 percent of his body weight or completed certain medical examinations, including a $1,800 sleep study, at his own expense. The applicant successfully pursued an administrative remedy through the state department of labor and industry alleging that the railway defendant had illegally discriminated against him because of perceived disability. He was awarded damages for lost wages and benefits, prejudgment interest and emotional distress. On appeal, the…
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has adopted the “reasonable consumer expectation” test to determine whether a boneless turkey product allegedly containing a bone was defective. Pinkham v. Cargill, Inc., No. 11-340 (Me., decided July 3, 2012). So ruling, the court vacated the lower court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiff Stanley Pinkham allegedly consumed a hot turkey sandwich during his break. The defendant allegedly manufactured the boneless turkey product in the sandwich. In the middle of or immediately after eating the sandwich, Pinkham allegedly experienced severe and sudden pain in his upper abdominal area and thought that he might be having a heart attack. His physicians later determined that in their opinion he most likely had an “esophageal tear or perforation.” Pinkham sued, alleging that this was a result of bone in the boneless turkey. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted while noting that Maine had…
A New York resident has filed a putative class action against Diamond Pet Foods and Amazon.com, seeking medical monitoring for pets that consumed recalled Salmonella-tainted pet food. Cohen v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, No. 12-3299 (E.D.N.Y., filed July 2, 2012). Plaintiff Steven Cohen alleges that he fed his dogs Taste of the Wild® brand pet food, purchased from Amazon.com, and that they became ill, vomiting frequently, “which caused damage to Plaintiff’s property.” Seeking to certify a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff alleges breach of implied and express warranty, strict products liability, violations of state consumer fraud laws, negligence, and unjust enrichment. In addition to medical monitoring, the plaintiff seeks actual damages or restitution, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. A Canadian non-profit representing the interests of foie gras producers, a New York-based foie gras producer and a company that operates restaurants in California have…
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided which of the parties sued over an E. coli outbreak that sickened dozens of Sizzler Steak House patrons in 2000 and caused the death of a 3-year-old are liable for consequential damages, indemnity and costs under various supply chain and insurance contracts. Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., Nos. 2009AP1212 & 2010AP491 (Wis., decided June 29, 2012). Among other matters, the court ruled that Sizzler was entitled to (i) recover consequential damages for the meat supplier’s breach of implied warranties despite limiting language in the continuing guaranty provision of their contract, and (ii) indemnity from the meat supplier for Sizzler’s advance partial payment to the family of the deceased child “because the payment was not voluntary and the jury found that Sizzler was zero percent liable for the E. coli contamination.” The court also ruled that Sizzler could not recover its attorney’s fees despite a jury finding…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Ralphs Grocery Co. alleging that it breached its promise not to share the personal information that shoppers must provide to obtain a “Ralphs rewards Card”; only cardholders may purportedly take advantage of advertised store discounts. Heller v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. BC486035 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 6, 2012). He contends that he would not have shopped at the grocery stores or applied for a rewards card “if not for Defendant’s misrepresentation and/or nondisclosure of the fact that it was selling and/or sharing its customers’ personal identification information.” According to the complaint, the defendant shares customer information with Kroger and with dunnhumby, a company that allegedly “performs data mining services for more than 350 million people in 25 countries on behalf of retailers” and “uses personal identification information and data from purchase transactions gleaned from the Ralph’s reward Card…
A Cuyahoga County, Ohio, court has reportedly determined that a state law prohibiting municipalities from regulating the ingredients used in prepared foods, such as restaurant meals and grocery or bakery takeout items, does not preempt Cleveland’s ordinance prohibiting retail food establishments from selling foods containing trans fats. Cleveland announced the ban in April 2011, and several months later, Ohio’s General Assembly amended the state’s budget with a provision prohibiting municipalities from restricting the food at food service establishments “based on the food nutrition information.” Cleveland sued the legislature in January 2012, contending that it had encroached on its home rule authority. City of Cleveland v. Ohio, No. cv-12- 772529 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., decided June 11, 2012). Additional information about the lawsuit appears in Issue 422 of this Update. The court apparently agreed, noting in the case docket that the amendment was unconstitutional and that the city’s enactment…
