Product Recall

Kikkerland Recalls Wireless Charger Bedside Pockets


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On October 18, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Kikkerland Recalls Wireless Charger Bedside Pockets Due to Fire and Burn Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he wireless charger bedside pockets can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Recall

Cooper Lighting Recalls Solar/Battery Powered Light Fixtures


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On October 11, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Cooper Lighting Recalls Solar/Battery Powered Light Fixtures Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he batteries in the solar-powered light fixtures can overheat and cause the light fixture’s housing to melt, posing a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Recall

Briggs & Stratton Recalls Portable Generator Fuel Tank Replacement Caps


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On October 10, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Briggs & Stratton Recalls Portable Generator Fuel Tank Replacement Caps, Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he fuel tank replacement caps lack ventilation holes which allow pressure to build up in the fuel tank, posing a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Pointing out a Problem

California Supreme Court Holds That Evidence of Industry Custom and Practice May Be Admissible in a Design Defect, Strict Product Liability Case


This entry was posted by on .

In Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 6 Cal.5th 21 (Cal. 2018), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the trial court properly allowed the defendant to introduce evidence of industry custom and practice in defense of a strict product liability design defect case. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was relevant and admissible because it was introduced to address the feasibility and cost of alternative product designs, and not to show that the defendant acted reasonably. The court’s holding establishes that, while evidence of industry custom and practice is not admissible to prove or disprove fault in strict liability cases, it is admissible for other purposes, such as analyzing whether a product was defectively designed under the risk-benefit test. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in California, Evidence, Products Liability and tagged , , .
Product Recall

Traeger Grills Recalls Wood Pellet Grills


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On September 25, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Traeger Grills Recalls Wood Pellet Grills Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, grease can leak from the drip tray, posing a fire hazard.

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Recall

Hawthorne Hydroponics Recalls Humidifiers


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On September 5, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Hawthorne Hydroponics Recalls Humidifiers Due to Fire and Shock Hazards.

According to the CPSC, the humidifiers can overheat while in use.

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Fallen Tree

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion


This entry was posted by on .

In Woodrum v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 815 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), the Court of Appeals of Georgia considered whether the lower court properly disqualified a contractor as an expert witness and excluded the contractor from offering lay opinion testimony regarding the value of a property. The Court of Appeals held that, while the lower court properly disqualified the contractor as an expert witness, it improperly excluded the general contractor’s lay opinion testimony regarding the value of the property. This case establishes that, in Georgia, a lay witness can provide opinion testimony on the value of a property if the proponent of the testimony demonstrates that the witness had an opportunity to form a reasoned opinion. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Experts – Daubert, Georgia and tagged , .
Cargo

Carmack Amendment Loss Claims Should Indicate a Specified or Determinable Amount of Money


This entry was posted by on .

In N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 719 Fed. Appx. 691 (9th Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Appeals Court) addressed the question of whether an insurer, N.Y. Marine & General Insurance Company (N.Y. Marine), could recover from a cargo carrier under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, if the insured’s loss claim did not state a specified amount of money. Finding that § 14706 requires that a party filing a cargo loss claim state a specified or determinable amount of money, the Appeals Court affirmed the district court’s holding that neither the carrier, Estes Express Lines, Inc. (Estes) nor the broker, Exfreight Zeta, Inc. (Zeta), was liable to N.Y. Marine. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Cargo - Transportation, Subrogation and tagged , .
Product Recall

Xtava Recalls Allure Hair Dryers


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On August 15, 2018, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Xtava Recalls Allure Hair Dryers Due to Fire, Burn and Electrical Shock Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he hair dryer and power cord can overheat and catch on fire, posing fire, burn and electrical shock hazards.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Water Loss

Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant


This entry was posted by on .

In Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. BrassCraft Mfg., Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88986 (D.R.I. May 29, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island addressed the question of whether the defendant was so unfairly prejudiced by the subrogating insurer’s spoliation of evidence that dismissal of the plaintiff’s case was the appropriate Rule 37(b)(2)(a)(i)-(vi) sanction. The court, focusing on the potential for undue prejudice to the defendant, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Rhode Island, Spoliation and tagged , .