Posted on Jul 10, 2014
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s strict products liability and implied warranty of merchantability claims against an air mattress manufacturer and the retailer from which the product was purchased. The plaintiff was allegedly injured after his inflated air mattress unexpectedly popped and collapsed. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead a specific defect that caused the product to be unreasonably dangerous, which was required under Florida law for a strict products liability claim. The court...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jul 9, 2014
An insurance dispute developed arising from alleged soil and groundwater contamination around an Indiana plant used to manufacture automotive component climate control system parts including radiators, condensers, hoses, compressors, accumulators, fuel injection components, and evaporators. The aluminum from which the parts were made had to be cleaned, so the site operated 13 degreasers since the early 1960s, which primarily used Trichloroethylene (TCE) and to a lesser extent Trichloroethane (TCA). Multiple alleged releases at the site allegedly caused a substantial TCE groundwater plume...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jul 8, 2014
Last Fall, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri awarded a railroad employee a verdict of nearly $1.7 million after a train “bottomed out” and ejected him. Yesterday, the court had to determine whether the railroad properly withheld payroll taxes to be tendered to the U.S. Treasury from the amount of the verdict. Specifically, was a general verdict issued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) subject to the taxation language within the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) that provides, “there is … imposed on the income of each employee a tax...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jul 7, 2014
The Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed a decision from the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board to exclude the testimony and report of an independent medical examiner as a sanction for the claimant’s counsel’s violation of a no-contact order. The case involved a worker that performed maintenance for an aircraft company for 30-plus years and complained of multiple back injuries. Following an order from an ALJ not to contact the appointed independent medical examiner without the court’s approval and notice to the opposing counsel, the claimant’s counsel sent a letter to the examiner...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jul 6, 2014
A millwright at a vessel-loading facility was injured when handling mooring cables. His amended complaint included two tort claims against his employer that allegedly fell within limited exceptions to the exclusivity of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”). First, the millwright argued the employer was liable for a maritime tort action because it waived its LHWCA immunity by failing to pay compensation. Second, the millwright alleged the employer was liable for an intentional tort under Michigan law because, due to his lack of training, the injury was certain to...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jul 2, 2014
Today, the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) hosted its second public forum to discuss the emerging recommended practice for Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS), American Petroleum Institute RP 1173. Members of the development team discussed the ten essential elements for a PSMS identified in the recommended practice: (1) leadership and management commitment; (2) stakeholder engagement; (3) risk management; (4) operator controls; (5) incident investigation, evaluation, and lessons learned; (6) safety assurance; (7) management review and continuous...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jul 1, 2014
Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that privilege did not apply to a defense contractor’s internal investigation of alleged fraud because the majority of the work was conducted by non-attorneys, the internal investigation was undertaken in the normal course of business to ensure regulatory compliance, the attorneys in charge were in-house lawyers, and the internal investigation was not conducted to assist with the rendering of legal advice or in anticipation of litigation. On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the...
Continue Reading