Eric M. Friedman

Eric Friedman guides clients through all stages of product liability litigation, particularly working with expert witnesses to present the science behind clients' products. By leaning on his pre-law history as a biochemist, he is able to identify key arguments for and against clients and craft winning strategies for both motion practice and trial.

View the full bio for Eric M. Friedman at the Faegre Drinker website.

Articles by Eric M. Friedman:


Florida Courts of Appeal Scrutinizing Punitive Damages Claims

Share

It is not uncommon for a product liability plaintiff to base a claim for punitive damages on little more than the same allegations that undergird a strict liability or negligence claim, while adding that the defendant knew that the product was unsafe or that the warnings were inadequate and marketed the product regardless. While that approach has worked at times in the past, recent decisions from Florida’s Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal remind us that Florida imposes a high bar on punitive damages claims. Specifically, these courts highlighted several key points related to claims of punitive damages in product liability cases: (1) Florida’s statutory requirements for punitive damages are more stringent than some other states (specifically, California) and, therefore, orders from other states awarding punitive damages are unpersuasive; (2) Florida law presumes a product is not defective if it complies with applicable government regulations; (3) the level of negligence required to plead punitive damages in Florida requires conduct equivalent to establishing criminal manslaughter; and (4) the Florida Supreme Court has all but eliminated punitive damage awards in product liability cases. These cases are discussed in further detail below.

Continue reading “Florida Courts of Appeal Scrutinizing Punitive Damages Claims”

Defective Logic: Why Recall Evidence Falls Short in Court

Share

In product liability litigation, plaintiffs often treat a product recall as though it is conclusive proof that the product is defective or that its warnings are inadequate. Some plaintiffs even cite clearly inapplicable recalls — for example, lot-specific recalls spurred by a manufacturing or labeling issue that did not impact the unit that the plaintiff received — in an effort to bolster their case before a court or in settlement discussions. Federal Rule of Evidence 407’s prohibition on the use of recall evidence to prove those points seems to do little to quell the enthusiasm. Of course, Rule 407 is grounded in part on “a social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety.” Fed. R. Evid. 407 advisory committee’s note. But Rule 407 is not the only grounds on which recall evidence can (and should) be excluded.

For example, in Pecan Trust v. Nexus RVs, LLC, 2025 WL 1503940 (N.D. Ind. May 27, 2025), the plaintiffs sued the manufacturers of an RV and certain component parts alleging, among other things, that a defect in the brake pressure switch represented a fire risk. In support of that claim, they pointed solely to a safety recall for the part due to a possible fire risk and an expert witness who, based on the recall alone, concluded that the issue might pose a fire risk. The parts manufacturer moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion as to the breach of warranty claim after concluding that the plaintiffs had not proffered sufficient evidence of a defect. As the court noted: “That a recall has occurred may be evidence of certain things—namely as a subsequent remedial measure—but it cannot show a product defect. In reality, products subject to a recall might have a defect or might not, as a recall implements a safety campaign to ensure that none do or will manifest one.” (internal citations omitted). And, as the court noted in the specific context of the warranty claim, the fact that the plaintiffs had never presented the RV for work under the recall posed a second, equally problematic obstacle to their claim.

Continue reading “Defective Logic: Why Recall Evidence Falls Short in Court”

Fifth Circuit Clouds Threshold Dose Analysis in Ruffin v. BP

Share

Plaintiffs in toxic tort cases must prove both general and specific causation, generally through the testimony of experts. Experts must establish that a specific chemical exposure can (and did) cause the specific injury at issue. In order to make that showing, the plaintiff’s exposure must at least have exceeded the minimum harmful level of the chemical — the “threshold dose.” As the Eleventh Circuit made clear last year in its handling of In re Deepwater Horizon BELO litigation (which we discussed here), threshold dose is a concept that straddles general and specific causation. A more recent BELO case, Ruffin v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 1367185 (5th Cir. May 12, 2025), shows how isolating an expert’s general causation opinion from its implications on specific causation can cloud the analysis.

In Ruffin, the plaintiff worked for five months as a clean-up worker following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer five years later and sued the defendant, claiming he was exposed to chemicals that caused his cancer. He described two instances of exposure: one when oil splashed onto his face while travelling by boat and another when he fell in the water. The plaintiff had a known genetic risk for prostate cancer, but his expert claimed the oil exposures were a “second and necessary hit to initiate his prostate cancer.” The defendant moved to exclude the plaintiff’s causation expert, a genetic and molecular epidemiologist, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The district court had excluded both the expert’s general and specific causation opinions as unreliable, largely for failure to specify a threshold dose, and then granted summary judgment for want of admissible expert evidence.

Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Clouds Threshold Dose Analysis in Ruffin v. BP“

Sixth Circuit Applies FRE 702 to Class Certification Experts and Highlights Commonality and Predominance Issues for Products That Change Over Time

Share

Class certification decisions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mark a critical stage in any putative class action lawsuit. Rule 23(a) requires plaintiffs to prove, among other things, that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” And Rule 23(b) authorizes money damages class actions only where the legal or factual questions common to the class predominate over questions that may be addressed differently for individual class members. In class actions involving claims about product performance, class proponents almost always cite the existence of a “defect” as common issue. But why is the generic question of “defect” even the right question, and what if the product has experienced a significant change over the time period covered by the class action? When a product is updated, is it still the same “product” for purposes of Rule 23? The Sixth Circuit, in In re: Nissan North America, Inc., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 4864339 (6th Cir. 2024), addressed not only these questions but also joined the growing list of circuits that expressly require expert testimony offered at the class certification stage to satisfy Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Applies FRE 702 to Class Certification Experts and Highlights Commonality and Predominance Issues for Products That Change Over Time”

To Depose or Not to Depose: When Challenging Opposing Nonretained Experts Becomes Challenging

Share

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to disclose the opinions of experts who may present evidence at trial. If the disclosures are inadequate, Rule 37(c) requires exclusion of the opinions “unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” This almost automatic exclusionary rule can pose issues when deciding whether to depose an opposing expert. Although “Rule 26(a)(2) does not allow parties to cure deficient expert reports by supplementing them with later deposition testimony,” Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 642 (7th Cir. 2008), some courts nevertheless may consider an inadequate disclosure to be “harmless” once the expert’s opinions have been fully explored at deposition. On the other hand, although “[c]ourts have uniformly rejected the [idea] that the failure to depose an expert affects the right to object to the expert’s testimony,” Hinton v. Outboard Marine Corp., 828 F. Supp. 2d 366, 370 (D. Me. 2011) (collecting cases), a party may need to depose an opposing expert in order to properly set up a challenge to the expert’s opinions for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or trial if the court deems the expert’s disclosure adequate. This issue becomes particularly acute as applied to nonretained experts, who need not provide a written report under Rule 26. A recent opinion from the Northern District of Indiana aptly illustrates the quandary.

In Macchia v. Landline Trans, LLC, No. 2:21-CV-398, 2024 WL 4751091 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2024), the plaintiff alleged that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident and proffered three of his treating physicians as experts to opine on his injuries and causation. The defendants filed a three-pronged motion to exclude the experts. Notably, the defendants elected not to take the depositions of any of the three physicians. Indeed, the court’s opinion repeatedly observed how the lack of deposition testimony made it “a bit of a challenge” to summarize the background facts and adjudicate the motion.

Continue reading “To Depose or Not to Depose: When Challenging Opposing Nonretained Experts Becomes Challenging”

Plaintiff’s Half-Baked Attempt to Prove Defect and Causation With Photographs of Moldy Bread Shows the Knead for Expert Testimony

Share

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but that doesn’t make the camera an expert witness. Product liability actions usually require expert testimony to prove defect and causation. Pictures, like other documents, can be central to an expert’s opinion on those points. But as a plaintiff in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently learned, pictures alone are insufficient. Defect and causation still require an expert’s testimony — even in cases involving products as simple as a loaf of bread.

In Kovalev v. Lidl US, LLC, 2024 WL 4642982 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2024), the plaintiff alleged that he became ill after consuming bread sold and/or baked by the defendants. He claimed to have bought eight loaves initially and experienced abdominal pain and difficulty breathing after spending two days eating the first loaf. He claimed to have thereafter discovered that the loaf was “extensively contaminated with dangerous disease-causing toxic mold.” He took pictures. Later, the plaintiff ate from a second loaf and developed nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain/cramps, general malaise, and respiratory issues “for days.” Once again, he allegedly inspected the bread after eating it and “discovered various-colored mold.” And once again, he took pictures. (As an aside, if we became ill after eating a loaf of bread and then discovered “extensive” mold on it, we would spend the foreseeable future carefully checking all our bread for mold before digging in. We might do so simply because we have read this case. But we digress.) Three months later, the plaintiff purchased four more loaves of bread from another of defendants’ stores. He claimed that while eating that bread he discovered “a large piece of black substance” inside it. Once again, he took pictures. Because he did not know what the substance was or whether he had consumed part of it, he claimed to be “severely traumatized” and afraid of developing future “cancer or damage to his organs,” “suffer[ing] a physical impact,” and losing his “enjoyment of life.”

Continue reading “Plaintiff’s Half-Baked Attempt to Prove Defect and Causation With Photographs of Moldy Bread Shows the Knead for Expert Testimony”