Court of Appeals Reverses Multiple Summary Judgments and Allows Plaintiff to Move Forward in Mesothelioma Suit.
Plaintiff worked as a mechanic at the Tennessee Eastman chemical plant for nearly 30 years. While employed there, he was responsible for repairing and maintaining the equipment. Due to the corrosive nature of the chemicals at the plant, the equipment required daily repairs and maintenance. When he made repairs to the equipment in carrying out his job duties, and when worn components on the equipment were replaced, Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos. Following his diagnosis of Mesothelioma, Plaintiff filed suit against multiple Defendants including those who manufactured and supplied the equipment and replacement parts containing asbestos.
Amazon Can Be Liable for Negligent Assumption of Duty to Warn for Website Sale of Dangerous Product
In 2015, online retailer Amazon, Inc. sold more than 250,000 hoverboards through its website. By November 2015, Amazon knew that these products presented a risk of explosion. Amazon stopped selling the hoverboards and emailed customers with an “Important Product Safety Notification” that mentioned news reports of safety issues and offered information on how to return the product, Amazon did not, however, inform customers of the risk of explosion or fire. Amazon intentionally sent a “non-alarmist” email so as to avoid “headline news.”
In 2016, over half a million “hoverboards” were recalled because of the tendency to combust. The damages caused by these “exploding” hoverboards resulted in lawsuits around the country. The nature of the online business and the importation of products meant that plaintiffs were often unsuccessful in locating the actual manufacturer of the products. So, they sued online retailer Amazon, seeking to hold it liable for selling such a dangerous product on its website.
The Fox family of Nashville was among those seeking to hold Amazon responsible selling the dangerous hoverboards. In 2016, the Fox family of Nashville lost their home to a fire when a hover board sold by Amazon, Inc. exploded. The children, who were trapped on the second floor of the home, had to jump from windows to escape. The Fox family sued Amazon for negligent failure to warn of the dangers of the hoverboard product.
Throughout the country, Amazon’s repeated response to these lawsuits was that it was merely a “marketplace” that connected sellers with customers directly. In this way, Amazon argued, it was unlike a “big box” store like Wal-Mart that actually sold the products to customers. This legal theory prevailed in many jurisdictions. And, in the Fox family’s suit, Amazon once again won at the trial court via “summary judgment,” with a legal ruling that Amazon was not responsible because it could not be considered a seller of the product under Tennessee law.
The Foxes appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the judgment of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that Amazon assumed a duty to warn of the dangers posed by the hoverboards, and there remained material issues of fact as to whether Amazon was negligent in their failure to adequately warn of those dangers. It remanded the case for a jury trial on the theory of negligent failure to warn.
DPBC’s Donald Capparella was appellate counsel for the Fox family on appeal, along with co-appellate counsel, Steven Anderson.
Harmless Error Doctrine Extends to Rule 12.02(6) Motion
The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently released an opinion that provides a compelling insight into the sticky wicket of civil procedure. The facts of the case involve an otherwise pedestrian dispute between homeowners and their contracted buyer on one hand and an HOA on the other. The ruling, however, ultimately touches on the joinder doctrine and the relation back rule, the harmless error doctrine, the admissibility of evidence at the summary judgment stage, pleading rules, and consideration for contracts to forbear bringing suit.
Civil litigation practitioners should read the entire opinion, paying particular attention to the Court of Appeals’ description of how Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03 applies to obviate a statute of limitations defense. Additionally, readers should note the pronouncement by the court that the harmless error doctrine extends to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motions to dismiss. This is evidently an issue of first impression in Tennessee law. The Court of Appeals decreed this new rule as follows:
Nevertheless, we agree that premature dismissal under Rule 12.02(6) is harmless error if, at the time of the trial court’s ruling, (1) there was a pending motion for summary judgment, (2) the non-moving party had a full and fair opportunity to respond, and (3) summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law.
The upshot of this ruling is essentially that, if a trial court errs in granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, but a grant of a pending summary judgment motion would have been appropriate, then the dismissal will be upheld under Tennessee’s long-standing “right result/wrong reason” rule.
Given the many issues of civil procedure addressed in this opinion, it will be interesting to see if the parties choose to ask the Tennessee Supreme Court to grant permission to appeal.
Court of Appeals Provides Guidance on Statutory Summary Judgment Standard
The Tennessee Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) established that Tennessee generally follows the federal standard where summary judgment motions are concerned, but left many open questions–particularly regarding the interplay between the Rye decision and the pre-existing Tennessee statutory summary judgment standard. (See our write-ups here and here.) But, the Court of Appeals has recently provided some help for practitioners… read more
Dance Party Results in Injuries But No Liability
The Court of Appeals recently examined potential liability from a deck collapse during a party attended by “a ridiculous amount” of high school students. The upshot? It seems like a determination that having lots of people jumping and dancing on a deck doesn’t make it forseeable that the deck could break and hurt people… read more
Tort Law Blog: How is Pleading Vicarious Liability Like Skinning a Cat?
Every once and a while, a court case will serve as a helpful refresher on some concepts that attorneys may have not thought of since law school. The Tennessee Court of Appeals’ ruling in Bowman v. Benouttas includes a helpful primer on various theories of vicarious liability: respondeat superior, joint venture, and implied partnership. In other words, there’s more than one way to get there, but you still have to plead each argument. read more
Court of Appeals Addresses Nonsuits in Healthcare Liability Actions (Again—-and Again!)
This fall, two opinions, issued two days apart and from different sections of the Tennessee Court of Appeals, have explored the same essential question: should a plaintiff in a health care liability action be permitted to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit without prejudice in the face of a motion to dismiss arising from an inadequate certificate of good faith? read more
Sometimes a slip and fall is really just a slip and fall…
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence intended to assist the plaintiff who has no direct evidence of negligence by providing a way to have circumstantial evidence considered when a plaintiff is trying to proof negligence. The doctrine won’t save a case where there is simply no evidence of negligence, though. read more
Injured Patron Can’t Sue; Membership Agreement Waived Right
An exculpatory clause waives the right to sue. A recent Court of Appeals case shows that it the waiver can be far broader than you may realize. read more
Collateral Source Rule under Attack
This article by Donald Capparella originally appeared in the Tennessee Tort Law Letter.
The Court of Appeals recently decided a case that will affect every personal injury case in Tennessee… read more