considered the NJPLA, which covers claims related to harms caused by consumer products and was applicable because of the allegations of a manufacturing defect in the milk. The court dismissed the negligence and NIED claims on the basis that they were subsumed by the NJPLA. The court allowed the NJPLA claims to proceed on behalf of the minor children, but dismissed the parents’ claims as they had not suffered physical injuries. Regarding the motion to strike the class allegations, the court explained the motion was premature, as discovery might be needed to assess class certification. The court also addressed the argument that the class definition was a fail-safe class, meaning it could only include individuals with valid claims, and that it violated the Rules Enabling Act by enlarging the parents’ rights and abridging the minors’ rights. The court found that the fail-safe argument was not a sufficient basis to strike the class allegations and that New Jersey and federal rules allowed parents to bring suits on behalf of their children. The court concluded that any potential conflicts could be addressed during class certification. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss the parents’ individual claims, denied the motion as to the plaintiffs’ NJPLA claims on behalf of the minor children, and denied the motion to strike the class claims. In the litigation captioned In Re Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 Crash, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97011 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2023), the plaintiffs filed a class action asserting negligence claims against defendant Boeing under two Illinois statutes - the Wrongful Death Act and the Survival Act - in relation to a plane crash. Boeing sought to exclude evidence of pre-impact fright and terror, arguing that it was not relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims. Boeing contended that such evidence was not relevant to the survival claim because the passengers had no time to experience conscious pain and suffering before dying upon impact. Additionally, Boeing argued that it was not relevant to the wrongful death claim because it concerned the grief and sorrow of the surviving family members, which could be established by evidence of what happened in the beneficiaries’ lives, rather than the passengers’ lives. The court ruled against Boeing, stating that damages for pre-impact emotional distress were available to the plaintiffs, to the extent they could prove them at trial, regardless of whether they could prove a pre-impact physical injury. The court concluded that Boeing ’ s stipulation did not prevent them from making arguments about the availability of damages under Illinois law. Boeing agreed to pay damages available under Illinois law, which may include emotional distress damages, but the stipulation did not bar Boeing from challenging the extent of those damages. Id. at *16. Boeing also argued that pre-impact fright and terror should not be recoverable under the Survival Act because they believed emotional distress must be caused by bodily injury to be compensable. The court disagreed with Boeing ’ s argument and concluded that there was no pertinent authority in Illinois law to prevent recovery for pre-impact emotional distress damages under the Survival Act. Boeing also contended that the beneficiaries should not be allowed to testify about the emotional distress resulting from their contemplation of the passengers’ experiences during the crash. The court rejected this argument. It found that evidence of the passengers’ emotional distress was part of the “process or manner of death” and that it was not speculative, given the evidence available. Id. at *27. Accordingly, the court denied Boeing ’ s motion in limine to exclude evidence of pre-impact emotional distress and granted Boeing ’ s motion to exclude speculative testimony regarding conscious pain and suffering on impact. In Schmitt, et al. v. Newell Brands Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52626 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2023), the plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and brought claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased a car seat that was manufactured one and a half years prior to his purchase date. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant ’ s manual stated “STOP using this car seat and throw it away 10 years after the date of manufacture,” and thus, the useful life of the car seat had depreciated by 15% at the time of the purchase. Id. at *2. The plaintiff sought both monetary damages and injunctive relief, arguing that he and others were financially harmed by the defendant ’ s deceptive practices. The defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to file his claims. The court ruled that the car seat purchase did not appear to involve a contract, and the plaintiff did not allege that the car seat failed to provide the advertised benefits or specify
11
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Product Liability And Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online