Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New York and New Jersey. If you find this update useful, please encourage your colleagues and contacts to also register with us on our Web site. As always, you can access all of our publications at www.foleyhoag.com.
Included in this Issue:
MASSACHUSETTS
- First Circuit Holds Plaintiff
Adequately Alleges Deceptive Practices Claim For No-Hazelnut Coffee
Labeled "Hazelnut Créme" Despite Ingredient List
Excluding Hazelnuts And Mentioning Artificial Flavors, Allegation
Of Deception On Purchase Sufficiently Particular As Exact Date And
Location Not Needed For Defendant To Respond, And Claim Not
Preempted by Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act As Plaintiff Alleged
FDCA Violation That Independently Violated State Law
- Massachusetts Federal Court Holds
Class Certification Of Deceptiveness Issues In Cosmetic Device
Marketing Action Not Superior Method For Resolving Controversy As
Individual Causation Issues Would Remain, And Varying
Representations Made Plaintiffs' Claims Neither Common Nor
Typical; Summary Judgment Granted As Plaintiffs' Nationwide
Claims Did Not Occur Primarily In Massachusetts, Contracts
Disclaimed Merchantability And Unjust Enrichment Cannot Override
Express Contract
- First Circuit Holds Plaintiff In
Contract-Based Warranty Of Merchantability Claim Need Not Prove
Specific Failure At Issue Foreseeable By Reasonable Testing, Only
That Product Not Fit For Reasonably Foreseeable Uses, Notification
Of Intent To Change Design At Unspecified Time Not Sufficiently
Explicit To Preclude Reasonable Reliance On Later Failure to Change
Part Number As Representation Of Unchanged Design And
Defendants' Pervasive Control Of Subsidiaries Sufficient To
Establish Subsidiaries Were Their Agents
- Massachusetts Federal Court Compels Production of Communications Between Plaintiffs and Consulting Expert Who Authored Key Study On Which Plaintiffs' Testifying Experts Relied, Holding Some Communications Outside Consulting Period, And Discovery Needed Based On Expert's Concealment Plaintiffs Funded Study And Litigation Misconduct In Hiring Consulting Expert To Publish Study And Other Experts To Testify Based On It
- Massachusetts Federal Court Precludes
Opinion Of Allergist and Immunologist Regarding Pharmacist's
Standard Of Care For Dispensing Antibiotic And Causation of
Stevens-Johnson Syndrome Where Expert Admitted He Had No Knowledge
Of Standard Of Care, His Only Knowledge Of Syndrome Came From One
Seminar And His Opinion Plaintiff Had Syndrome Was Based Solely on
Inadmissible Affidavit Of Precluded Expert
NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY SUPPLEMENT
- New York Supreme Court Holds Asbestos in Some Of Defendant's Talc Products And In Supplying Mines Sufficient To Support Inference Plaintiff's Specific Products Had Asbestos, And Fiber Release Studies Plus Medical Expert's "No-Safe Level" Opinion Sufficient To Support Finding Asbestos Caused Plaintiff's Mesothelioma
- New York Federal Court Precludes
Engineering Expert's Opinion Lawnmower Design Was Defective For
Lack Of Shutoff Upon One-Handed Operation As Unsupported By
Reliable Methodology Or Others' Adoption Of Such Feature, And
Opinion English-Only Warnings Were Defective Where Expert Failed To
Account For Employer's Ignoring Defendant's Warnings And
Offer Of Spanish Warnings
Excerpt:
First Circuit Holds Plaintiff Adequately Alleges Deceptive Practices Claim For No-Hazelnut Coffee Labeled "Hazelnut Créme" Despite Ingredient List Excluding Hazelnuts And Mentioning Artificial Flavors, Allegation Of Deception On Purchase Sufficiently Particular As Exact Date And Location Not Needed For Defendant To Respond, And Claim Not Preempted by Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act As Plaintiff Alleged FDCA Violation That Independently Violated State Law
In Dumont v. Reily Foods Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23710 (1st Cir. 2019), plaintiff bought a coffee called "Hazelnut Créme" that contained no hazelnuts and sued the manufacturer in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging the label violated Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A, the state unfair and deceptive practices statute. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, holding the complaint contained insufficient detail regarding the circumstances of plaintiff's purchase and hence violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s requirement that fraud be pled with particularity.
Download the November 2019 Foley Hoag Product Liability Update (pdf).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.