Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every



Tuesday & Thursday at 6pm P.S.T.




Saturday, January 8, 2011

Sixth Circuit finds sufficient facts in motorcycle helmet litigation to survive

OFF THE WIRE
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b085776d-b99c-4df8-9126-4f571a1c6271

Sixth Circuit finds sufficient facts in motorcycle helmet litigation to survive motion to dismiss...

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP Gary Long, Greg Fowler and Simon Castley USA
January 6 2011
 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated safety misrepresentation claims against the manufacturer of a motorcycle helmet, finding that the putative class pleadings stated sufficient facts to survive the plausibility pleading standard established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Fabian v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc., No. 10-5009 (6th Cir., decided December 23, 2010).
A man who purchased two of defendant's large motorcycle helmets filed the litigation on behalf of a class. He had apparently sold one of the helmets to a friend who later died of brain trauma after crashing his motorcycle while wearing the helmet. Among other matters, he alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and claimed that he had "relied on Fulmer's material misrepresentations that such helmets were `DOT approved.'" Apparently, smaller helmets failed government testing in 2002, while the large helmets passed each component of tests conducted in 2000.
According to the court, "There are at least two legitimate ways to think about the significance of the [government safety] tests, and they point in opposite directions when it comes to the merits of this lawsuit. One is that the difference between the 2000 and 2002 test results turns on the differences between the small and large … helmets. If so, that would support the district court's ruling that the disparity between the size of the helmet bought and the size of the helmet tested is fatal to Fabian's claims. The other reasonable inference, however, is that helmets of the same model, even if differently sized, perform the same. Two differently sized helmets, for example, may be no more distinct as a matter of performance than differently sized pairs of shoes or two differently sized pairs of pants. If so, the failed 2002 test potentially exposed a defect in all [model] AF-50 helmets, no matter their size."
With nothing in the record to credit one set of reasonable inferences over the other, the court determined that the "Rules of Civil Procedure entitle Fabian to pursue his claim (at least with respect to this theory [i.e., fraud]) to the next stage—to summary judgment or, if appropriate, a trial after the parties have engaged in any relevant discovery to support one or the other interpretation." Because the court found that the plaintiff had "`nudged his claims across the line from the conceivable to the plausible,'" it ruled that "he deserves a shot at additional factual development, which is what discovery is designed to give him." Also determining that the claims were not preempted by federal regulations, which were deemed to establish minimum performance requirements, the court remanded the case for further proceedings.

TagsUSA, Litigation, Product Liability, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP .