Photo of Bexis

The defendants in Mixson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, (N.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2022) (“Mixson I”), and Mixson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2022 WL 7581737 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2022) (“Mixson II”), by no means won everything, but what they won was more important than what they didn’t, so we’re OK with the results.

Continue Reading Mixson Somewhat Mixed, But We’ll Take It

Photo of Michelle Yeary

California state court is not the place most products liability defendants want to end up.  Unfortunately, today’s case had to stay in state court because plaintiff sued the defendant’s device representatives who had direct contact with the plaintiff.  The reps, like plaintiff, were California residents and destroyed diversity jurisdiction. The decision, however, in James v.

Photo of Bexis

For a decision that affirmed not just a verdict, but an award of punitive damages, against a device manufacturer, Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc., 46 F.4th 757 (8th Cir. 2022), is not as bad as it could have been.  That’s because most of the decision was about evidentiary rulings that the court found to be “harmless” error, and one might even have some benefit for our clients in the long run.

Still, Nicholson was pretty darn depressing.

Continue Reading Nicholson – Not So Harmless

Photo of Eric Alexander

In our experience, plaintiffs in product liability cases always seek punitive damages.  Even when their claimed injuries are quite modest or their state does not permit punitive damages, they give it a shot.  We have had cases with partial summary judgment on punitive damages, with directed verdict on punitive damages, and with jury verdicts for