In Case You Missed It: Faegre Drinker on Products — Summer 2025

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Tort Reform Is Top of Mind in 2025: Legislative Updates in Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas

By Elizabeth A. Wurm, Jenna Seiler & Elizabeth C. Christen

Some states that are home to “Judicial Hellhole” venues, often known for producing nuclear verdicts, have rallied for successful tort reform. In the most recent state legislative sessions, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas implemented tort reform bills which may serve to neutralize the nuclear verdicts coming out of their courts.

 

Message Received — Delaware Follows Federal Rule of Evidence 702

By Eric M. Friedman & Emma DeLaney Strenski

The Delaware Superior Court took the mass tort world by surprise with its refusal to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts’ causation opinions in the Zantac litigation. But the Delaware Supreme Court granted the defendants’ request for interlocutory appeal and has reversed the Superior Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.

 

ChatGPT As Your New Testifying Expert Under Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707? Maybe Not.

By Nikolas G. Spilson & Eric M. Friedman

Tools that can reduce the time and cost of litigation have long been in high demand by both clients and counsel. But the tool must be fit for its purpose, and tools that generate evidence or other outputs that will be submitted to the court must pass judicial scrutiny. One of the newer fights concerns the admissibility of machine-generated “expert” opinions.

Causation Conundrums: Implications of Georgia Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Statute of Repose in Long-Term Product Use Cases

When does the statute of repose clock start ticking on a product liability claim involving long-term repeat use of many individually purchased units of a product? According to the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Burroughs v. Strength of Nature Global, LLC, __ S.E.2d __, 2025 WL 2918923 (Ga. Oct. 15, 2025), the short answer is that the statute of repose starts anew for each individual unit. But, as Burroughs itself illustrates, that answer creates serious problems that may require the state’s legislature to intervene.

The Burroughs plaintiff alleged she developed uterine fibroids as a result of using chemical hair relaxers manufactured by the defendants repeatedly over nearly two decades. Specifically, she claimed she began using the products in 1995 at the age of six and used them six to eight times per year through 2014 (with one brief hiatus). She developed uterine fibroids in 2018 and filed suit in 2022. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s strict liability claims on the basis that they were barred by the statute of repose. Georgia’s product liability statute of repose requires actions to be commenced within 10 years of “the date of the first sale for use or consumption of the personal property causing or otherwise bringing about the injury.” OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2) (emphasis added). The trial court denied defendants’ motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding the plaintiff’s initial purchase of the first unit of the defendants’ products was a “first sale” that triggered the statute of repose and barred her filing an action more than 10 years later.

Continue reading “Causation Conundrums: Implications of Georgia Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Statute of Repose in Long-Term Product Use Cases”

Close, But Not Quite: Eastern District of North Carolina Excludes Experts Whose General Expertise Does Not Enable Specific Opinions Offered

Even “[a] supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions” unless those opinions pass muster under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5 (7th Cir. 1999). As a recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina illustrates, this principle is at play not only when critiquing an expert’s methodology, but also the expert’s expertise.

In Williams v. Sig Sauer, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 2643400 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2025), the plaintiff was an “enforcer” for his motorcycle club who “protect[ed]” and “monitor[ed]” the club members. He alleged that his pistol discharged and injured him while he was adjusting his position on his motorcycle. In support of his product liability claims against the manufacturer of the pistol, he proffered two expert witnesses: a gunsmith and a mechanical engineer. The defendant moved to exclude both experts and filed a motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading “Close, But Not Quite: Eastern District of North Carolina Excludes Experts Whose General Expertise Does Not Enable Specific Opinions Offered”

Nothing Shocking Here – Eleventh Circuit Affirms Defense Win in Electroconvulsive Therapy Case

When a case involves electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), one might think it originated out of the Twilight Zone. Despite the misrepresentation of such therapies in popular media, modern ECT serves as a valuable option for patients with certain severe mental health conditions who have tried other therapies without success. Although ECT is far safer today than it was when the stigma attached to it was formed, it still carries risks such as confusion, memory loss, and some physical side effects. One need not enter another dimension to envision why a plaintiff might claim damages arising from those risks. Much like Rod Serling’s anthology, the Eleventh Circuit recently closed the door on one such episode.

In Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2749888 (11th Cir.), the plaintiff suffered from depression and mental health issues so severe that he attempted to take his life numerous times in numerous ways. During a two-year span, he received 95 ECT treatments to address his conditions. He was later diagnosed with a neurocognitive disorder that caused severe memory loss.

Continue reading “Nothing Shocking Here – Eleventh Circuit Affirms Defense Win in Electroconvulsive Therapy Case”

No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.

A recent summary judgment decision out of the Southern District of Georgia illustrates the critical role of defect evidence (or lack thereof) in negligence claims involving medical devices. As the plaintiff in Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-009, 2025 WL 22772490 (S.D. Ga. Sep. 29, 2025) recently learned, allegations that a medical device malfunctioned are not sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on negligent manufacturing and failure to warn claims.

In Rudzinskas, the plaintiff alleged that on two different occasions, when her husband injected her with vitamin B12 at home, the needles shot off their syringes and became dislodged inside her body (first in her buttock, and a few months later, in her arm). Plaintiff asserted that the syringes were marketed as containing needles that automatically retract from a patient into the barrel of the syringe when the plunger handle is fully depressed. Plaintiff sought medical attention following the alleged incidents. Plaintiff’s physicians confirmed the presence of the first needle and attempted to surgically extract it, but the surgery was unsuccessful. After the second incident two months later, the same surgeon attempted to confirm the presence of the second needle, but did not see it and did not perform surgery. Arising from these allegations, the plaintiff asserted two claims against the defendant for (1) negligent manufacture and (2) negligent failure to warn.

Continue reading “No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.“

Standing on Shaky Ground: Product Recalls Alone Do Not Constitute an Injury in Fact

Cynics have long said that no good deed goes unpunished. Such can be the case with voluntary product recalls, which often engender litigation even by plaintiffs who have suffered no real injury and merely see an opportunity for a windfall. As we recently noted, recalls do not equate with product defects. However, plaintiffs — or their attorneys — act as though purchasing a recalled product is in itself a cause of action that justifies a lawsuit. A recent opinion from the Sixth Circuit offers yet another illustration why that reasoning is unsound and highlights how defendants can attack it early in a case. Specifically, because an allegation that the product a plaintiff purchased was recalled does not raise a plausible inference of injury in fact, a plaintiff lacks standing to assert a claim premised on a recall alone.

The named plaintiffs in Ward v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 24-3387, 2025 WL 2613489 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025), filed a putative class action in Ohio federal court alleging that they purchased peanut butter products from lots that the defendant had voluntarily recalled following a salmonella outbreak that had affected 16 people across 12 states. The plaintiffs did not, however, allege that any sampling or testing had revealed the presence of salmonella in the products they purchased. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of Article III standing, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked an injury in fact, and the district court granted the motion.

Continue reading “Standing on Shaky Ground: Product Recalls Alone Do Not Constitute an Injury in Fact”