Justia Connect Webinars Products Liability Litigation: Managing Complex Cases

You are watching a webinar preview. To view the full webinar, log in to your Justia Connect account or sign up for free.

Overview AI Webinar Summary

Products Liability Litigation: Managing Complex Cases

The seminar will provide a relatively in-depth immersion into the salient principles of strict product liability law; individual and class action/mass tort claims; and principles governing the cause of action and its intersection with breach of warranty and duty to warn actions. It will also set forth relevant defenses typically interposed to these cases, and the evolving nature of the law in various states. Settlements of certain large product liability class actions such as the Phillips C-Pap litigation, PFAs (forever chemicals) and various motor vehicle class action settlements will also be discussed.

Duration of this webinar: 60 minutes

Originally broadcast: November 4, 2026 10:00 AM PT

Webinar Highlights

This webinar is divided into section summaries, which you can scan for key points and then dive into the sections that interest you the most.

00:00 Introduction

Bruce Newman is introduced as an attorney with over 30 years of experience concentrating in product liability, wrongful death, consumer injury, and class actions. Bruce begins by discussing the complexity of product liability cases and notes there is no federal body of common law for product liability; it is specific to each state. Bruce aims to provide perspectives from both plaintiff and defense sides throughout the presentation. Bruce notes that federal regulations are intertwined with various product liability claims, citing the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, black box warnings, and warnings on pharmaceuticals as examples.

05:54 Complexity of Product Liability Cases

Bruce discusses how federal district courts handle multi-district litigation, noting they typically apply the law of the state where the defendant has its principal place of business, though not always, while using state statutes of limitations because a reasonable consumer would expect their own state’s statute to apply. Bruce says different product types, such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, lawnmowers, and defective toys, fall into different ‘buckets’ for evaluation. Separately, he notes that experts are part of all these cases and vary by type, such as engineers for motor vehicles and medical doctors plus engineers for medical devices. Bruce explains that a skincare product can support a class action for consumers’ economic loss but is probably a mass tort once people are injured, citing the Rodan and Fields example. From a defense perspective, Bruce says the first thing you may look at is whether the defect is a manufacturing or design defect, and then whether it is widespread, which raises whether a voluntary recall needs to be considered, versus a one-off manufacturing defect affecting a limited number of products.

12:58 Regulations, Warnings, and Defect Types

Bruce notes manufacturers know their state and federal regulators and asks whether a product complies with state and federal regulations, such as the EPA. He uses Denny v. Ford (rollover cases) to show that questions such as whether breach of implied warranty equals a strict liability claim were certified to New York’s highest court, and that Ford’s marketing of the vehicle as a family car was powerful evidence for the plaintiffs. Bruce says anecdotally that these cases seem to involve circuit courts certifying questions to state supreme courts many times. Warning claims are discussed, noting that failure to warn is often subsumed under strict product liability claims. Bruce uses a metal shed as an example of asking whether a defect is a manufacturing defect or a design defect, and the DePuy/Stryker hip implants as MDLs alleging design defects. Bruce notes that pharmaceutical ads come with a litany of warnings and that there will always be some kinds of warnings with products. Bruce explains that most product liability cases involve an alleged failure by the manufacturer to warn of potential risks, while manufacturers try to do everything they can to make sure those risks are delineated in their instructions and product manuals.

24:08 Case Management

Bruce examines what the management of these cases entailed, using examples like the Takata airbag recall and Toyota's unintended acceleration cases. Bruce explains that plaintiff steering committees pick the best case, plaintiff, and facts to try first in an MDL, which early on seemed a good indicator of case value, but many things can throw off a verdict, as with the defense verdicts and huge verdicts in the Monsanto Roundup cases and some Johnson & Johnson cases. Bruce compares the conduct in the Volkswagen defeat device case, where emissions tests differed from real driving, with GM’s ignition switch cases, where he says a big theme was that spending under $2 more on the part could have saved many lives.

34:11 Consumer Products, Causation, and Black Box Warnings

Bruce notes that the Instant Pot pressure cooker case involved a failure to warn and that toy makers must think about what warnings are proper for young children. Bruce notes that years after an initial settlement handled as part of the MDL, he still saw Roundup in stores, and that there is a second MDL in the Philadelphia area. He lists batteries as a consideration for danger from swallowing and fire. Bruce says talcum powder was ultimately found to have caused cancer in plaintiffs who used it for years with no warning, and he believes its asbestos content makes causation somewhat easier to prove. Bruce asks whether Roundup is reasonably safe for its intended uses, noting a pesticide will presumably be somewhat harmful to kill weeds but questioning whether it has to contain the chemicals Roundup had. Bruce says differential diagnosis is typically used to show a product caused a cancer, and that if talcum powder could not be ruled out as a possible cause it should go to the jury. Bruce asks how causation is proved when a person who developed lung cancer after using a Philips CPAP device may also have been a smoker. Bruce explains that drug manufacturers must come to an agreement with the FDA on what goes in the black box, with the manufacturer presumably releasing its test results, possible contraindications, and possible risks, and then, presumably together, the FDA comes up with the black box warning.

45:34 Recent Developments, Preemption, and Causation Standard

Bruce discusses federal preemption, which he calls impossibility, citing the Supreme Court trilogy of Wyeth, Mensing, and Albrecht and recent circuit court cases from 2024 and this year. He discusses the trend of placing the responsibility to warn back on manufacturers, emphasizing the fact-specific nature of these inquiries. Bruce notes that manufacturers have an obligation to report harm and certain incidents, and there is a website for doing so. Bruce references the Chantix cases, where a smoking-cessation drug apparently could cause certain people to become suicidal, and the Ferry v. Mead Johnson baby formula cases involving gastroenterological problems for babies at increased risk from cow milk. Bruce cites City of New York v. ExxonMobil, quoting its conclusion that superseding cause instructions ‘serve to complicate what is fundamentally a proximate cause analysis,’ and says proximate cause analysis goes back to what is the substantial cause of the harm.

Please note this AI-generated summary provides a general overview of the webinar but may not capture all details, nuances, or the exact words of the speaker. For complete accuracy, please refer to the original webinar recording.

Speaker

Bruce Newman Partner
Brown Paindiris & Scott, LLP

Attorney Bruce Newman has been practicing law for over 30 years and concentrates his practice in the areas of product liability, wrongful death, consumer injury, and class actions where he has served as lead counsel, plaintiff’s class counsel and liaison counsel. He is a Lifetime Member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, which is composed of a select group of lawyers who have achieved million dollar verdicts and settlements in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Read More ›

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Credits

Lawyers: To receive CLE credit, you must verify your law license for free in the Justia Lawyer Directory to become a Justia Connect Practice member. Depending on the jurisdiction or course, you may be eligible for free CLE credit or may need to upgrade your membership to Justia Connect Pro. Check CLE terms for full details.

Alabama CLE

Status: Approved

Format: On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: December 31, 2026

California CLE

Status: Approved

Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: June 30, 2028

Hawaii CLE

Status: Approved

Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: November 3, 2028

Illinois CLE

Status: Approved

Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: November 3, 2028

Nevada CLE

Status: Approved

Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: December 31, 2029

New Jersey CLE

Status: Approved

Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand

Credits: 1.20 General

Earn Credit Until: September 29, 2027

North Carolina CLE

Status: Approved

Format: On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: February 28, 2027

Ohio CLE

Status: Approved

Format: On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: December 31, 2026

Pennsylvania CLE

Status: Approved

Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 Substantive Law, Practice, and Procedure

Earn Credit Until: November 3, 2028

Texas CLE

Status: Approved

Format: On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: October 31, 2027

Vermont CLE

Status: Approved

Format: Live (Virtual), On-Demand

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: November 4, 2031

West Virginia CLE

Status: Approved

Format: On-Demand

Credits: 1.20 General

Earn Credit Until: December 31, 2029

This presentation is approved for one hour of General CLE credit in Alabama, one hour of General CLE credit in California, one hour of General CLE credit in Hawaii, one hour of General CLE credit in Illinois, one hour of General CLE credit in Nevada, one hour of General CLE credit in North Carolina, one hour of General CLE credit in Ohio, one hour of Substantive Law, Practice, and Procedure CLE credit in Pennsylvania, one hour of General CLE credit in Vermont, and one hour of General CLE credit in West Virginia. This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 1.20 hours of total CLE credit. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.00 credit hours.
This presentation is approved for one hour of General CLE credit in Alabama from 2027-01-01 to 2027-12-31.

Justia only reports attendance in jurisdictions in which a particular Justia CLE Webinar is officially accredited. Lawyers may need to self-submit their certificates for CLE credit in jurisdictions not listed above.

Note that CLE credit, including partial credit, cannot be earned outside of the relevant accreditation period. To earn credit for a course, a lawyer must watch the entire course within the relevant accreditation period. Lawyers who have viewed a presentation multiple times may not be able to claim credit in their jurisdiction more than once. Justia reserves the right, at its discretion, to grant an attendee partial or no credit, in accordance with viewing duration and other methods of verifying course completion.

At this time, Justia only offers CLE courses officially accredited in certain states. Lawyers may generate a generic attendance certificate to self-submit credit in their own jurisdiction, but Justia does not guarantee that lawyers will receive their desired CLE credit through the self-submission or reciprocity process.

Looking for CLE credit? Visit CLE Dashboard