Mass Tort Litigation Blog

Plaintiffs Lose Second GM Ignition Switch Trial

You can find the report by Erik Larson & Patricia Hurtado on Bloomberg here.  Bill Vlasic at the New York Times also has a piece on the win for GM.

This case involved a crash on an icy bridge in New Orleans during a rare ice storm in that part of the country.  The plaintiffs suffered minor injuries.

The jury found the accident was caused by the ice storm, not the defect.  It did, however, also find that the car was "unreasonably dangerous."  With respect to that determination, Prof. Carl Tobias (Richmond) is quoted in the Bloomberg article saying: “The plaintiffs can claim a victory at least insofar as the jury made that finding, which is a critical finding.  Every case will be on its own merits, but I think they can claim that as an important development.”  

It looks like one can find documents relating to the case here.   The next case to go to trial is Yingling v. GM, which was the subject of the dispute earlier this year.

NFL and Big Tobacco?

The New York Times has an article today on the link between NFL and Tobacco called NFL's Concussion Research Deeply Flawed. 

What does this mean for the NFL settlement?  Should the issue be approached in the mode advocated long ago by Francis McGovern - that is, by allowing the mass tort to mature through multiple trials before a settlement is reached?  

This article also raises the question of how the law promotes and creates disincentives for entities to conduct reliable scientific studies.  For interesting takes on that question, compare Wendy Wagner, Choosing Ignorance in the Manufacture of Toxic Products with Wendy Wagner, When All Else Fails: Regulating Risky Products Through Tort Litigation.  

 

Court Upholds Class Certification in Tyson Foods

The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo.  The Court upheld class certification on a state claim that parallels FLSA and the FLSA collective action (which is not a class action but an opt-in procedure) and reaffirmed its precedent that representative evidence can be used in FLSA cases.  The Court's decision emphasizes that there is no one size fits all in the use of statistical evidence in class actions - whether evidence is appropriate is a question of evidence law that depends on the specific legal and factual requirements of the individual case.  The case also supports the relatively narrow reading appellate courts have given the Court's decision in Comcast.  The evidence presented, be it statistical or any other form of evidence, must fit the claims, but that does not mean that statistical analysis cannot help the court and the jury better understand what transpired.  

What does Tyson portend for future trials, which Robert Klonoff predicted are going to be more common in class actions?  A couple things.  First, defendants will probably seek to bifurcate trials and make greater use of specific verdict forms rather than try to assault a lump sum verdict on appeal.  Second, Daubert challenges are likely to continue to be contentious, and we'll see them twice: first on certification and again at trial.  

Now the case goes back to the district court to determine an allocation plan, which I doubt defendants will challenge. The point of this appeal was to try to eliminate the use of statistical evidence in class actions and to broaden Comcast - otherwise why would fighting a 2.9 million dollar verdict be worth it for a defendant like Tyson? I can't think of a reason other than setting a precedent that prohibits the use of statistics in complex litigation will protect it and other defendants from class wage and hour claims, and potentially other claims.  And note that the late Justice Scalia's dissent, if he had dissented, would have played little role in the outcome of the case as Justice Roberts joined the majority.  It would have been 6 to 3 instead of 6 to 2.  

One more thing: is this a business unfriendly decision? I think not.  It is narrowly drawn to apply the law (FLSA) to employers, but an employer such as Tyson Foods can protect itself by keeping records that would obviate the need for representative evidence. 

 

Transparency in civil litigation?

Bloomberg BNA has an article by Steve Sellers about increased judicial scrutiny by courts in mass products liability cases.   He lists several cases in the last few years in which courts denied secrecy provisions in settlements because of the public interest:

Pollard v. Remington Arms LLC, W.D. Mo., No. 13-cv-00086, protective order denied, 12/3/14. This case, in the W.D. Missouri, involved a design flaw with a gun's trigger mechanism.

Guardino v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 2015 BL 392041, N.Y. Sup. Ct., No. 42325/2010, 11/24/15. This case in New York involved a defective stroller linked to the strangulation of a child.

The Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 2016 BL 6286, 9th Cir., No. 15-55084, 1/11/16.  This case in the 9th Circuit granted in intervenor public interest organization's motion to obtain documents in a lawsuit involving defective car parts.

Maybe there is a trend towards transparency.  Another recent Bloomberg BNA piece by Perry Cooper highlights the question of whether class action settlement outcomes should be required to be disclosed.