Real Events Happening Daily to Real People 1 Mead PS, et al., Food-related illness and death in the United States, Emerg Infect Dis. 5:607-614. 1999.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
U.S. Civil Litigation – How it Really Works Strict liability –It is your fault – Period! Negligence –Did you act reasonably? Punitive damages –Did you.
Advertisements

Foodborne Illness CSI: 9th Annual PulseNet Seattle Update Meeting May 9-11, 2005 Cracking the Legal Code.
Problem of people being injured by “defective products.”
Food Production is a Risky Business  Competitive Markets  Wall Street and Stockholder Pressures for Increasing Profits  Lack of Clear Reward For.
“Poisoned Food: Lawsuits and Food Safety Bill Marler Bill Marler.
Minimizing Your Liability Risk and Foodborne Illness Lawsuits.
Chapter 18: Torts A Civil Wrong
Chapter 18 Torts.
Chapter 16 Lesson 1 Civil and Criminal Law.
SARAH L. BREW GREENE ESPEL, PLLP 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota Causes of Action in Food-borne Illness Litigation.
JAMES RAY COLSON V STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 60 Cal.App.3d 913 (1976) 131 Cal. Rptr. 895.
Torts and Cyber Torts Chapter 4.
Traditional choice-of-law approach for torts law of the place of the harm.
1 Introduction to Software Engineering Lecture 39 – Software Development.
Contaminated Food - How I do what I do!. Real Events Happening Daily to Real People 1 Mead PS, et al., Food-related illness and death in the United States,
14 Annual Australian HACCP Conference August 2, 2007 Queensland, Australia.
Professor Charles H. Smith Negligence, Product Liability and Damages (Chapter 15) Summer 2009.
L IABILITY I NSURANCE, R ISKS ON THE J OB Marshall Wolff James E. Egbert May 14, 2014.
Legal Implications Strict Product Liability The manufacturer of a defective product is liable if the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous,
Slides developed by Les Wiletzky Wiletzky and Associates Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany.
Chapter 6 Strict Liability and Product Liability
Food Law and Regulation: Looking Ahead to the Future of Food Policy October 24, 2006 Examining Best Practices in Cases of Legal Liability Responding to.
ABA Food and Supplements Fall Teleconference October 17, 2007.
1 Liability and Risk William D. Marler, Esq.
Contaminated Food – How to Evaluate Risk Liability Claims Subcommittee Meeting Washington DC September 17, 2009.
Pure and Wholesome: Is Food a Risky Business? Pure and Wholesome: Is Food a Risky Business? A Lawyer’s perspective William D. Marler, Esq.
TORTS A tort is committed when……… (1) a duty owing by one person to another, is… (2) breached and (3) proximately causes (4) injury or damage to the owner.
Unit 6 – Civil Law.
Foodborne Illness CSI: Milwaukee North Shore Rotary Club October 23, 2006 Cracking the Legal Code.
1 William D. Marler, Esq. Marler Clark LLP PS “Put me out of business - Please”
How Big is the Food Poisoning Problem?  CDC reports that yearly 76,000,000 are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die as a result of eating.
Products Liability “Liability for Defective Products”
Torts in a Health care setting. What is a Tort? A tort is an infringement of a person’s rights that constitutes grounds for a lawsuit. This may be in.
The Shifting Landscape of Foodborne Illness Litigation William D. Marler, Esq. Marler Clark LLP PS.
LEE BURGUNDER LEGAL ASPECTS of MANAGING TECHNOLOGY Third Ed. LEGAL ASPECTS of MANAGING TECHNOLOGY Third Ed.
1 William D. Marler, Esq. Marler Clark LLP PS “Put me out of business - Please”
Negligence and Strict Liability. Products Liability The liability of manufacturers, sellers, and others for the injuries caused by defective products.
Chapter 6 Product and Strict Liability
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
Contract Law for Paralegals: Traditional and E-Contracts © 2009 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All rights reserved Relationship of Tort.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 23.1 Chapter 23 Product Liability.
Strict Liability and Tort Reform. Strict liability requires the blame be put on the people conducting the unreasonably hazardous activity Even harm.
Food Safety May 6, 2008 University of Minnesota Does Litigation Help?
1 The Cow, the Pig and the Fence William D. Marler.
Chapter 09 Negligence and Strict Liability Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
TORT LAW. DUTY The legal obligation to perform …as dictated by condition of employment or statute.
The Legal Standard: Strict Liability Strict Liability Is Liability Without Regard To Fault.  The focus is on the product; not the conduct  They are.
1 FOOD SAFETY MANAGING RISKS TO REDUCE LEGAL LIABLITY ELIZABETH HAWS CONNALLY,ESQ. Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.
Mass Tort Symposium – New Orleans October 17, 2008 Case Selection/Case Resolution.
“Secrecy, Costs, Criminals and Claimants” PCA – Poisoning People and Criminal Acts.
Civil Law An overview of Tort Law – the largest branch of civil law Highlight the differences between tort law and criminal law How torts developed historically.
Do now pg 57 1.Which situation is an example of civil law? Murder or Divorce? 2.Give me 2 examples of civil cases.
Negligence Tort law establishes standards for the care that people must show to one another. Negligence is the conduct that falls below this standard.
Law-Related Ch Notes I. Torts: 1. A tort is a civil wrong.
STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
Building the Defense of a Product: Taking a Technical Approach
Torts In The Business Environment
Chapter 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability
Foodborne Illness Litigation
STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
Chapter 13: Product Liability
Contaminated Food – Minneapolis How I do what I do!
Food Fight – Is It Covered?
Chapter 6 Product and Strict Liability
What are the legal implications?
Examining Cases of Legal Liability
Examining Cases of Legal Liability
What are the legal implications?
Civil Law 3.5 Defenses to Torts
STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
Presentation transcript:

Real Events Happening Daily to Real People 1 Mead PS, et al., Food-related illness and death in the United States, Emerg Infect Dis. 5: Buzby, et al. Product Liability and Microbial Foodborne Illness (2001)ERS Agricultural Economic Report No  76 million cases of foodborne illness annually 1  325,000 hospitalizations  5,000 deaths  Medical costs, productivity losses, costs of premature death costs 6.9 billion dollars a year 2

Civil Litigation – A Tort – How it Really Works  Strict liability  It is their fault – Period!  Negligence  Did they act reasonably?  Punitive damages  Did they act with conscious disregard of a known safety risk?

Strict Liability for Food – a Bit(e) of History “… “… a manufacturer of a food product under modern conditions impliedly warrants his goods… and that warranty is available to all who may be damaged by reason of its use in the legitimate channels of trade…” Mazetti v. Armour & Co., 75 Wash. 622 (1913)

Who is a Manufacturer? A “manufacturer” is defined as a “product seller who designs, produces, makes, fabricates, constructs, or remanufactures the relevant product or component part of a product before its sale to a user or consumer….” RCW (2); see also Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co., 120 Wn.2d 246 (1992)

The Legal Standard: Strict Liability STRICT LIABILITY IS LIABILITY WITHOUT REGARD TO FAULT.  The focus is on the product; not the conduct  They are liable if:  The product was unsafe  The product caused the injury

It’s called STRICT Liability for a Reason  The only defense is prevention  Wishful thinking does not help  If they manufacture a product that causes someone to be sick they are going to pay IF they get caught

Why Strict Liability?  Puts pressure on those (manufacturers) that most likely could correct the problem in the first place  Puts the cost of settlements and verdicts directly onto those (manufacturers) that profit from the product  Creates incentive not to let it happen again

The reason for excluding non- manufacturing retailers from strict liability is to distinguish between those who have actual control over the product and those who act as mere conduits in the chain of distribution. Negligence Is The Legal Standard Applied To Non-Manufacturers See Butello v. S.A. Woods-Yates Am. Mach. Co., 72 Wn. App. 397, 404 (1993).

Punitive (or Exemplary) Damages:  Punish the defendant for its conduct;  Deter others from similar conduct. Historically, such damages were awarded to discourage intentional wrongdoing, wanton and reckless misconduct, and outrageous behavior.

The Legal Arsenal  Interrogatories  Requests for production  Requests for inspection  Request for admission  Third-party subpoenas  Depositions  Motions to compel

But, Litigation Can Work – A History Lesson Jack in the Box Odwalla

We would like to acknowledge the time and effort you have taken to contribute to the success of JACK IN THE BOX by enclosing this pen/highlighter. Each person submitting suggestions is eligible to receive one gift per quarter with their first suggestion.

What Will a Jury Think? A Jury = 12 Consumers

Can A Chinese Manufacturer be Sued?  Can the manufacturer be subject directly to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Court?  Does the manufacturer have assets in the U.S. that can be attached after a U.S. Court judgment? Answer is likely not – However

What Is Likely To Happen  Contracts with Chinese exporters will be amended to include specific indemnities in favor of the importer on product safety and quality issues.  Contracts with Chinese exporters will be amended to include a specific provision requiring the Chinese seller to obtain and maintain sufficient product and general liability insurance, with a reputable U.S. or international insurance carrier, or to have sufficient, attachable, assets in the U.S.

Litigation Lessons Learned  If you manufacturer a contaminated product and ship it to the U.S. and consumers are sickened, and if those illness are linked: 1.You may be sued by the consumer 2.You will be sued by the importer 3.You will lose both consumers and customers 4.You will be subject to intense media coverage 5.You may be subject to regulatory action 6.You may be subject to criminal sanctions

William D. Marler Marler Clark LLP PS 6600 Columbia Tower 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington Questions?