An Indiana federal court has granted summary judgment to Givaudan Flavors Corp. on the issue of design defect, ending a lawsuit by 27 popcorn factory workers who alleged they suffered respiratory injuries after being exposed to the company's diacetyl butter flavoring. Aregood v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., No. 14-0274 (S.D. Ind., entered October 18, 2017). Givaudan had filed a motion in limine directed to the absence of evidence or opinions regarding the alleged defective design or unreasonably dangerous condition of diacetyl, and the court asked for summary judgment briefing on the potentially dispositive issue. The court said that to show defective design under the Indiana Products Liability Act, a plaintiff “’must compare the costs and benefits of alternative designs and show that another design not only could have prevented the injury but also [is] cost-effective.’” Although the plaintiffs had obtained causation expert testimony and the court said it was “presuming without…
Tag Archives Indiana
Heartland Consumer Products, producer of sucralose-based sweetener Splenda®, has filed a lawsuit against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and its franchisees alleging the restaurant chain misleads its customers into believing it carries Splenda® while providing a different sweetener made in China. Heartland Consumer Prods. v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 16-3045 (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div., filed November 7, 2016). According to the complaint, Dunkin regularly purchased Splenda® from Heartland until April 2016, when it switched to a different sucralose sweetener. Heartland asserts that Dunkin employees continue to tell customers that the sweetener is Splenda even though the new sweetener is a “Chinese-made, off-brand sucralose.” Heartland further argues that Dunkin appropriated its “Sweet Swaps” program by creating a Dunkin-branded “Smart Swaps” program. The complaint asserts that Heartland received multiple reports of consumer confusion, including one customer who reported that a Dunkin employee said Dunkin had “bought out Splenda.” For allegations of trademark infringement, dilution, false…
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an Indiana law restricting the sale of cold packaged beer in convenience stores, pharmacies and groceries in incorporated towns, finding that the statute survives a rational-basis analysis. Petroleum Mktrs. & Convenience Stores Assoc v. Cook, No. 14-2559 (7th Cir., order entered December 14, 2014). The court found that although Indiana does not have "nearly absolute" power to regulate alcohol sales as the state had argued, it may prohibit stores from selling cold beer, even if it also allows the same stores to sell chilled beverages with higher alcohol content such as wine coolers. The court distinguishes between the licenses required by liquor stores, which can sell cold beer, and the licenses available to convenience stores and similar retailers; liquor stores "are subject to stricter regulations designed to enhance the State's ability to limit and control the distribution of alcohol," including minimum ages…
An Indiana federal court has upheld a state statute that limits the sale of cold beer to package liquor stores, barring other beer sellers like convenience stores from selling beer cooler than room temperature. Ind. Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Ass'n v. Huskey, No. 13-784 (S.D. Ind., order entered June 16, 2014). Indiana law divides beer sales permits into three categories: (i) a beer retailer permit for restaurants and bars; (ii) a dealer permit for package liquor stores; and (iii) a beer dealer permit for convenience stores, grocery stores and drug stores. The beer dealer permit places limits on retailers, prohibiting them from selling alcohol on Sunday, establishing a minimum age of clerks who can sell the beer, and barring them from selling beer cooled, chilled or iced. An association representing convenience stores challenged the constitutionality of the permit limitations in May 2013, arguing that the statute violated the association’s…
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has turned aside a challenge to an Indiana law that prevents an alcoholic beverage retailer from shipping wine to its customers via motor carrier. Lebamoff Enters., Inc. v. Huskey, No. 11-1362 (7th Cir., decided January 17, 2012). The retailer claimed that the law was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 and that it violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Writing for the panel, Judge Richard Posner explained that the Twenty-First Amendment, which confers core powers on the states to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages, places a thumb on the scale balancing state and federal interests. If the state interests are within those core powers, wrote Posner, there is a “‘strong presumption’ of validity.” According to the court, Indiana requires that drivers employed by liquor retailers be trained in the state’s alcohol laws and the recognition of…
