This update discusses recent decisions in Louisiana products liability litigation, particularly cases arising under the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA"), LSA-R.S. 9:2800.51 et seq. You may access in-depth discussions of cases by clicking on the footnote links to the E*Update blog.
1. LPLA - LOUISIANA FEDERAL COURT DISMISSALS OF LPLA CLAIMS FOR FAILURE OF THE PLAINTIFF TO ALLEGE MATERIAL FACTS IN HIS COMPLAINT
The LPLA is the exclusive remedy for a plaintiff to recover for injury caused by a product. A plaintiff may only recover if he satisfies at least one of the four statutory theories of liability under the LPLA.
Relying on the
Twombly-Iqbal pleading doctrine,
[1] federal judges in New Orleans have dismissed many suits under the LPLA based on a plaintiff's failure to plead sufficient facts, if accepted as true, that would satisfy the strict statutory requirements to prove a theory of liability under the LPLA.
[2]
2. LPLA - SUMMARY JUDGMENTS GRANTED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO SHOW A GENUINE ISSUE FOR TRIAL FOR HIS LPLA CLAIMS
Manufacturers have had great success in Louisiana federal courts with "no evidence" motions for summary judgment combined with motions in limine to exclude testimony proffered by plaintiff's experts. In these motions, manufacturers force the plaintiff to "thread the needle" with admissible fact and expert proof on each element of each LPLA theory of liability the plaintiff asserts.[3]Louisiana state courts are also on board with "no evidence" motions for summary judgment by manufacturers.
[4]
3. LPLA - A PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE HIS INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A "REASONABLY ANTICIPATED USE" OF THE MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCT
A plaintiff suing a manufacturer under the LPLA must also prove his injury arose out of a "reasonably anticipated use" of the product. "Reasonably anticipated use" of the product is determined from the standpoint of the manufacturer when it designed the product and anticipated its use. Kampen v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., 157 F. 3d 306, 315-317 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (plaintiff's use of the product in violation of the operator's manual is generally not a "reasonably anticipated use" of the product). Many Louisiana courts have granted summary judgment in favor of manufacturers for a plaintiff's failure to prove his injury occurred during reasonably anticipated use of the product.
[5]
4. SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE UNDER LOUISIANA LAW
The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. Bordelon, 2014-2362 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So.3d 607 (2015), that there is no claim under Louisiana law for negligent spoliation of evidence. Claims that a manufacturer spoliated evidence are still very difficult issues for manufacturers in litigation before the jury in Louisiana,[6] unlike Texas where the courts have established protections for defendants that can take intentional spoliation claims away from the jury.
[7]
[1] The
Twombly-Iqbal pleading standards were explained by Magistrate Judge Shushan in
Brocato v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 14-2607
,2015 WL 854150
, *2 (E.D. La. 2015).
Read more.
[2]
See, E.g., Watson v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 13-212, 2013 WL 1558328 (E.D. La. April 11, 2013) (Feldman, J.); Hargrove v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2014 WL 4794763 (E.D. La. 2014); Brocato v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 14-2607, 2015 WL 854150 (E.D. La. 2015) contra, Jenkins v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2015 WL 5012130 (E.D. La. 2015). Read more.
[3]
Hinson v. Techtronic Industries Outlets, Inc., 2015 WL 5024588 (W.D. La. 2015); Yolande Burst v. Shell Oil Company, et al, C.A. No. 14-109, 104 F.Supp 3d 773 (E.D. La. 8/8/2014);
Rhodes v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
, No. 10-1695, 2013 WL 1282450 (W.D. La. March 28, 2013.) Read More.
[4]
Reynolds v. Bordelon,
2014-2371 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So.3d 607 (2015). Read More.
[5]
Payne v. Gardner 2010-2627 (La. 2/18/11; 56 So. 3d 229;
Matthews v. Remington Arms Co.
, 641 F. 3d 635 (5th Cir. 2011)
;Batiste v. Brown, 11-609 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/24/12); 86 So. 3d 655;
McDaniel v. Terex USA, LLC,
466 Fed. App'x 365 (5th Cir. 2012). Read More.
[6]
I
n Re Actos product Liability Litigation
, MDL No. 6: 11-md-2299 (W.D. La. 4/7/2014). (multi-billion dollar punitive damage award based on spoliation of e-mails). Read More
[7]
Brookshire Bros. Ltd. v. Aldridge, et al
, 438 S.W. 3d 9 (Tex. 2014). Read more.
|
