Pennsylvania Worker recovers for fall from ladder bought at Home Depot

$2 Million Verdict for Foreman Injured by Pipe Plug

Third Restatement of Torts Tops High Court's Agenda

More news on the Whole Foods beef recall

From The New York Times:

Whole Foods Market said Monday it would tighten oversight of its suppliers to keep substandard products out of stores, after recalling ground beef that apparently sickened customers in two states.

After coming under new ownership, Coleman Natural began using a slaughterhouse in Omaha that had received multiple citations and had fought a long-running battle with the Agriculture Department. The government has said the plant was the source of ground beef that has sickened scores of people around the country.

Most of the beef was sold at grocers other than Whole Foods and recalled this summer. An additional 1.2 million pounds were recalled on Friday by the processor after illnesses in several states were tentatively linked to ground beef sold at Whole Foods and other stores.

At least four regional grocery chains — Fred Meyer, King Soopers and City Market, all owned by the Kroger Company, and Dorothy Lane — have also recalled suspect beef packages in recent days.

Retailer Sues UL for Certifying Defective Heaters

Platt Electrical Supply, Inc. sold electric in-wall heaters manufactured by Cadet Manufacturing Company. The heaters were tested and certified by Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”), a non-profit corporation that formulates safety standards for consumer products. In 1998, the Consumer Product Safety Commission noticed problems with the heaters, and then initiated a safety recall in 1999.

Platt was required to bear part of the cost of the recall. In addition, Platt was sued in a civil class action which it paid over $1 million to settle. During discovery in the class action, Platt, in 2001, obtained records showing that UL had been aware of defects in the heaters since 1989, but had not taken action to remove the UL certification. In 2003, Platt Sued UL alleging that UL negligently misrepresented that the heaters were safe, and fraudulently concealed information that would have alerted Platt to the defective condition. The District Court (N.D. Calif.) dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim as time barred, and granted UL’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the fraudulent concealment claim. Platt appealed.

Under California law, there is a three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims and a two-year limit for negligent misrepresentation. A claim accrues when all of the elements are present and the aggrieved party has discovered it or had reason to discover it (”inquiry notice”). In the instant case, Platt became aware of a problem when the recall was instituted in 1999. The Court of Appeals held that at that point Platt was on inquiry notice of its negligent misrepresentation claim. The limitation for the claim expired in 2001. The appellate court agreed that this claim was time barred.

Similarly, the Court reasoned that once Platt became aware that the heaters were defective, it was on notice that UL’s certification of the heaters was factually false. It was at that time in 1999 that Platt first had a basis to question the validity of UL’s representations about safety. Platt’s argument that the running of the statute was tolled by UL’s fraudulent concealment was rejected–Platt knew enough to have asserted the claim in a timely manner. Platt filed its fraudulent concealment claim well past the three year statute of limitations; accordingly, this claim was also barred.

Lastly, Platt argued that the District Court had abused its discretion when it denied Platt leave to amend its complaint. Platt asserted that it could amend its complaint to reflect that it had received information in 2001 during discovery in the class action that UL had intentionally concealed that the heaters were unsafe. The appellate court however stated that amending the complaint would be futile because the claims accrued in 1999, before discovery in the class action.

The judgment of the District Court dismissing Platt’s claims was affirmed.

Tomatoes linked to Pa. salmonella

From Philly.com:

Pennsylvania has reported its first cases of salmonella linked to tainted tomatoes, bringing to 30 the number of states - plus the District of Columbia - that have reported sick residents.

Federal health officials said yesterday that they had learned of 106 more cases nationwide, putting the outbreak's toll at 383 and counting. At least 48 people have been hospitalized.

"We do not think the outbreak is over," said Robert Tauxe of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In Pennsylvania, four people were sickened in late May in Bucks, Butler, Lancaster and Warren Counties, said Stacy Kriedeman, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health. Officials believe two of those cases involved exposure outside Pennsylvania, she said.

Dough machine maker settles with baker for arm and hand injuries

Torres v. Lucca's Bakery

Another Step in Stopping Court Secrecy

According to the American Association for Justice Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Linda Lipsen  "From tires that are defective to cribs that collapse on sleeping babies, secrecy agreements have been used to keep safety information away from people. Stopping secrecy in our civil justice system is necessary to ensure that defective products do not injure or kill more people."

Playtex Sued Over Chemical's Use in Manufacture of Baby Bottles

From Law.com:

An Arkansas woman has filed a federal lawsuit accusing a Connecticut company of making plastic baby bottles with a dangerous chemical linked to serious health problems.

The lawsuit by Ashley Campbell against Playtex Products Inc. of Westport is the latest challenge involving the industrial chemical bisphenol A. The lawsuit seeks nationwide class action status to represent what it says are thousands of people who bought plastic bottles containing the chemical from Playtex or other companies.

Canada said last month the chemical, found in hard plastic water bottles, DVDs, CDs and hundreds of other common items, is potentially harmful and may ban its use in baby bottles. A growing number of parents are turning to glass bottles amid the concerns over bisphenol A.

The U.S. government's National Toxicology Program said last month that there is "some concern" about BPA from experiments on rats that linked the chemical to changes in behavior and the brain, early puberty and possibly precancerous changes in the prostate and breast. While such animal studies only provide "limited evidence" of risk, the draft report said a possible effect on humans "cannot be dismissed."

With more than 6 million pounds produced in the United States each year, bisphenol A is found in dental sealants, baby bottles, the liners of food cans, CDs and DVDs, eyeglasses and hundreds of household goods.