Articles Posted in Defective Products

Food poisoning and food-related illnesses make their way through the news cycle every year. In some cases, the spread is limited to a few select products and corporations, grocery stores, and restaurants can take swift steps to remove the tainted products. However, some food poisoning and tainted food products result in serious and potentially long-term illnesses, giving rise to an Indiana products liability lawsuit.

Food poisoning and tainted food discoveries often come after several people become sick from consuming the product. However, in some situations, products come under scrutiny when the public becomes concerned about ingredients and safety standards. One such cause for concern revolves around heavy metals found in various baby food items and juices. Although, heavy metals are naturally found in soil, the amount found in many baby food products is concerning to many.

Heavy metals in baby food products is not a novel issue, as it has been the topic of various research studies over the past decade. However, following a 2019 study and a congressional report released in early February, many parents are reevaluating how they feed their children. Several popular baby food companies participated in the study; however, many declined to cooperate.

Recently, a national outlet published a report that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued recalls for bagged salads. The bagged salad mixes contained a microscopic parasite linked to an outbreak of intestinal illnesses in many Midwestern states. As a precaution to consumers, some retailers voluntarily recalled the mixes in Indiana. The agencies are also advising Indiana consumers to throw out their salad mixes if they are unsure of its origins. Individuals who suffer adverse effects after eating potentially harmful food items should contact an Indiana product liability attorney to discuss their rights and remedies.

Many consumers began getting sick from May to mid-June. The affected consumers ranged from 16 years old to 92 years old. The CDC explained that the microscopic parasite often contaminates water and food resulting in Cyclosporiasis. This intestinal infection typically causes diarrhea, cramping, and fatigue. Although these conditions may be treated with antibiotics, medically fragile individuals may suffer severe and long-term consequences, including hospitalization and death.

Microbiologists explain that they are not positive what causes these outbreaks, but it is likely related to the quality of the water used to farm the produce. In many cases, the water is contaminated with fecal matter. However, regardless of what caused the parasite, there is a clear indication that there was a breakdown in quality-control. In these situations, Indiana injury victims should hold all liable parties responsible for their injuries and resulting damages.

The Indiana Product Liability Act (IPLA) provides injury victims with an avenue for relief against a manufacturer or seller of a defective product, for the physical harm caused by the product. The IPLA defines consumers as a buyer or any individual who uses the product or any reasonable bystander who suffer injuries because of the product. A manufacturer is an individual or entity that creates, assembles, constructs, or otherwise prepares a product or component before the sale to a consumer. The law requires that plaintiffs abide by the strict statute of limitations and repose to avoid dismissal.

Under Indiana law, plaintiffs must commence their product liability actions within two years after the cause of action accrues or within ten years after the delivery of the device to the original user. However, if the claim accrues at least eight years after but less than ten years of delivery, the action may be filed within two years after the claim accrues. There is a specific exception for asbestos-related claims, and plaintiffs will often try and carve out additional exceptions based on case law. However, these exceptions undergo strict analysis and require a thorough understanding of Indiana product liability laws.

For example, recently, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing a plaintiff’s request to apply an additional exception to the statute of repose. In that case, the plaintiff suffered injuries after using a defective machine at work. His employer purchased the product in 2003, which was over ten years before the plaintiff filed his lawsuit. The plaintiff and defendant agreed that the claim was time-barred, but the plaintiff argued that his claim falls within an exception. He cited previous court discussions that addressed instances when a product undergoes a transformation, in effect, creating a new product. The plaintiff contended that courts should determine the statute of limitations from the time a product undergoes a repair, refurbishment, or reconstruction. He reasoned that this transformation would render the product “new,” and as such, the clock should begin running from that time.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently issued an opinion stemming from a tragic Indiana motorcycle accident. According to the court’s opinion, a husband and wife were traveling from Indiana to Salt Lake City, Utah when something punctured their motorcycle tire, causing the tire to deflate rapidly. The husband lost control of the motorcycle, and he crashed into a concrete barrier. The impact caused his wife to fly off the motorcycle as the bike dragged her husband on the highway. Although they were both wearing helmets, they each sustained traumatic brain injuries.

The couple received recall notices for their helmets a few months after the accident. The company that distributed the helmets notified consumers that helmets did not conform to the Department of Transportation standards. The company also warned that the helmet might not protect users in the event of a collision. The couple purchased their helmets two years before the recall from two different sellers. In response to the recall notice, the couple filed a products liability lawsuit against several parties, including the manufacturer of the helmets and the companies that sold the helmets. In their suit against the helmet company, the couple alleged that the accident resulted from a design and manufacturing defect. They also alleged that the company did not comply with federal safety standards and participated in negligent recall practices.

To establish liability in Indiana products liability lawsuits, plaintiffs must be able to prove that a party that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product knew or should have known that a product was unreasonably dangerous, either because of a design or manufacturer defect. The Indiana Products Liability Act requires that plaintiffs produce expert testimony in regards to causation. If a plaintiff cannot establish this crucial element of their claim, the court will grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a decision in an Indiana product liability case discussing whether the manufacturer of a component part can be held liable for its failure to install what the plaintiff alleges is a necessary safety feature. The court concluded that this case was somewhat unique in that the component part at issue had only one final use, and because of that, the question of whether a duty existed should be resolved by a jury.

According to the court’s opinion, a semi-truck was backing up on a job site when it ran over a construction foreman. The foreman died as a result of his injuries. The foreman’s wife (“the plaintiff”) filed a wrongful death case against the defendant, under a theory of product liability.

The defendant manufactured the “glider kit,” which consists of the frame and body of the truck. To turn the glider kit into a completed semi-truck, the purchaser must install an engine, transmission, and exhaust system. The glider kit did not come with any back-up cameras or alarms. However, a purchaser could opt to add those items onto the kit at an additional cost.