Product Liability

Retroactive Application of Products Liability Law
Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings
No. 80728-1
Supreme Court of the State of Washington

NCLC urged the Washington Supreme Court to consider whether the Court’s 1960 and 1975 decisions adopting strict product liability as to manufacturers and sellers, respectively, may be applied retroactively.  The appellate court held below that strict liability retroactively applies to all litigants whose claims are not otherwise barred, including plaintiff’s claim for asbestos exposure in 1958.  In its brief, NCLC made clear that, in addition to contradicting relevant Washington Supreme Court precedent, the lower court’s decision was troubling for products liability defendants in Washington courts.

Amicus brief filed 11/21/07.

View brief

Duty to Notify Remote Purchasers of Post-Sale Improvements
Brown v. Crown Equipment
No. FED-07-521
Maine Supreme Court

NCLC urged the Maine Supreme Court to clarify that the federal district court erred in ruling that, under Maine law, a manufacturer must notify remote purchasers of its products that there have been post-sale safety improvements.  In its brief, NCLC noted that the product as sold—a lift truck—was not defective and that Maine law did not require post-sale notification of safety improvements where the product was not dangerous at the time of sale.  The district court's unwarranted expansion of a manufacturer's duty to warn should therefore be reversed.  After NCLC filed its brief with the First Circuit, the court of appeals certified the question to the Maine Supreme Court.

Amicus brief filed 2/22/07.  Issue certified to Maine Supreme Court 9/4/07.  Amicus brief filed with Maine Supreme Court 11/8/07.

View brief

Class Certification and Washington's Consumer Protection Act
Schnall, et al. v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
No. 57523-6
Supreme Court of the State of Washington

NCLC urged the Washington Supreme Court to grant review of, and reverse, the intermediate appellate court's erroneous decision to certify a class under Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").  The lower court (1) incorrectly held that plaintiffs were not required to prove that each class member relied on the defendant's alleged misstatements about the Universal Connectivity Charge listed on subscribers' monthly statements and (2) affirmed an erroneous decision by the trial court that applied Washington's CPA to the deceptive advertising claims of subscribers, nationwide, even though the vast majority of subscribers received the allegedly deceptive representations, in their home states and had virtually no contacts with Washington.  

Amicus brief filed 9/17/07.

View brief

Lead Paint and Public Nuisance Laws
County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company
No. H026651
California Supreme Court
 
Manufacturers in California could face virtually limitless product liability if an appellate court decision stands, according to an NCLC amicus brief filed in the case. Santa Clara, along with other California government entities, filed a class action lawsuit against a group of lead paint manufacturers, including Atlantic Richfield Company, alleging fraud and product negligence. The lead products identified in the case were last used 20 years before the lawsuit was filed. NCLC has asked the California Supreme Court to put a stop to plaintiffs' lawyers skirting the statute of limitations for product liability lawsuits. In reversing the lower court, the appellate court permitted plaintiffs to submit to a jury their product liability, public nuisance, negligence, and fraud claims.  
 
Amicus brief filed 4/18/06.

View brief

Lead Paint and Products Liability
Smith, et al. v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., et al.
No. 68
Court of Appeals of Maryland

In a case regarding the standards for proving products liability claims in Maryland, NCLC filed a brief with the state's highest court in Maryland urging it to uphold the decision of a lower court in a case involving the plaintiffs' recent exposure to lead paint.  NCLC agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs had not pleaded or shown that they themselves had "relied" on the lead-paint manufacturers' representations when the paint was sold decades ago, and that manufacturers of non-lead-paint had no duty to warn that lead-paint abatement can be hazardous.

Amicus brief in support of Respondents filed 12/7/04.

 View brief

In re Tobacco/Government Health Care Cost Litigation
Republic of Guatemala v. The Tobacco Institute, et al.
No. 00-7023
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

As urged by NCLC, the D.C. Circuit has become the eighth court of appeals to consider and dismiss as "too remote" efforts by the trial bar to recover smoking-related health care costs paid by third parties here the governments of Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Ukraine on behalf of individual smokers. Each of those courts has unanimously rejected offers by the plaintiffs' bar to circumvent proof of individual causation and to deprive defendants of the opportunity to present affirmative defenses, such as assumption of risk and contributory negligence. 

Motion for leave to file as amicus curiae in support of defendants-appellees filed 3/20/00.  Motion granted 4/12/00.  Amicus brief filed 8/18/00 (This case was consolidated with Sheet Metal Workers v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., No. 98-CV-2326). Oral argument held 2/21/01.  Decision 5/22/01.

View brief