School district may be liable for bullying on school bus

I have blogged before on cases that discuss whether a school or school district can be liable for bullying (see here).  Now comes news that a federal court in Pennsylvania recently allowed portions of a couple’s civil rights complaint to proceed against a school district after their autistic 6-year-old son was allegedly beaten on a school bus on two separate occasions. They have plausibly alleged certain school officials placed the child in harm’s way by ignoring warnings about another student with documented, violent behavior.  You find a link to the decision here.

Panera Halts Sales of “Charged” Lemonade Drinks Following Lawsuits Claiming Caffeine Overdose Deaths -- UPDATED

May 13, 2024  [Update at the end below]

Last December  I reported on several lawsuits filed against Panera Bread Co. alleging it should be liable for the deaths of customers who suffered cardiac arrest after drinking Panera's "charged lemonade" which allegedly contained more than 300 ml of caffeine at the time.  See here and here.

Today, I am writing to report that Panera has decided to stop selling the product in question.  As reported in AboutLawsuits.com, 

Reports suggest that Panera Bread will no longer sell its “charged” lemonade products, after at least two consumer deaths were linked to excessive levels of caffeine in some of the drinks, leading to wrongful death lawsuits by the families.

Panera Charged Lemonade was introduced in 2022, featuring high levels of caffeine marketed as an alternative to coffee or energy drinks. However, at least two wrongful death lawsuits were filed against Panera last year, claiming that high levels of caffeine in the beverage led to fatal heart attacks or other heart complications.

While Panera claimed their charged lemonade as plant-based and clean, a 30oz lemonade could contain up to 390 milligrams of caffeine, which is the equivalent of four cups of coffee or three-and-a-half 12-oz cans of Red Bull. In addition, since Panera’s employees mix the lemonade, caffeine levels can vary drastically in different drinks, potentially providing potentially dangerous amounts for some consumers, especially those with certain pre-existing conditions.

Various news reports now indicate that employees are now being told that Panera Charged Lemonade will be phased out, and the chain is no longer ordering some key ingredients used to mix the products in stores.  

Go here for the full story. 

UPDATE 10/13/24:  The Hill is reporting that Panera has settled one of the lawsuits.  See here.

Panera Bread Co sued for wrongful death allegedly caused by Panera's highly caffeinated lemonade

December 4, 2023

Back in 2012-2013 there was a lot of discussion on possible claims for damages caused by "high energy" (read: highly caffeinated) drinks.  Go here and scroll down to refresh your memory.

The topic is now back in the news.  A recently filed lawsuit against Panera Bread Co. alleges it should be liable for the death of a young woman who suffered cardiac arrest after drinking Panera's "charged lemonade" which allegedly contained more than 300 ml of caffeine at the time.  

The Legal Eagle YouTube channel has a detailed explanation of the case.

UPDATE 12/10/23:

Additional coverage on the case at The Legal Examiner 

A second wrongful death lawsuit has been filed in Delaware.  See here.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares med mal statute of repose unconstitutonal

About two weeks ago, in a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a 7-year statute of repose for medical malpractice, enacted in 2002 as part of a "tort reform" effort is unconstitutional.  The court found the statute violated the right of access to the courts and had no substantial relationship to the legislative goal of controlling malpractice insurance costs and premiums.  Courts in at least 6 other states--Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Utah--have also held med mal statutes of repose to be unconstitutional.  The case is called Yanakos v UPMC and you can read the opinion here.

Here are a few key passages from the opinion:

...we conclude the governmental interest in controlling the rising costs of medical malpractice insurance premiums and of medical care is important. However, the MCARE Act’s statute of repose as enacted is not substantially related to achieving those goals.
. . . .
The effect of the seven-year repose period for most medical malpractice actions is to limit the “discovery rule” to seven years.  In most cases, if a malpractice victim discovers the injury and its cause within seven years, the victim may bring a timely lawsuit; however, after seven years, the statute of repose bars the victim’s action. Additionally, foreign objects cases are exempt from the statute of repose, and minors can file a lawsuit either seven years from the date of injury or until their twentieth birthday, whichever is later.  Thus, the statute of repose prevents most medical malpractice victims, except foreign objects plaintiffs and certain minors, from exercising the constitutional right to a remedy after seven years.
. . . .
In this case, there was no evidence to show the initially proposed four-year statute of repose would provide actuarial certainty, except that it “seemed like a reasonable resolution” to “provide some stability and predictability” to insurers. . . .  Moreover, there is no evidence in the legislative history as to how the General Assembly arrived at a seven-year statute of repose with exceptions for foreign objects cases and minors. The legislature did not cite any statistics on the number of medical malpractice actions that are commenced after seven years of the occurrence giving rise to the action.  There is no indication that such a time period, as opposed to a longer or shorter period, will have any effect on malpractice insurance costs.  Likewise, the parties in their current briefing failed to suggest the seven-year repose period has any substantial relationship to the legislative goal of controlling
malpractice insurance costs. 

Football players claim against College for injuries suffered in practice survives motion to dismiss

Two football players at Lackawanna Junior College were injured during the same tackling drill in 2010. They sued the college in 2012, claiming the football staff was negligent and the school should have had certified athletic trainers available to aid and advise players who were injured. Instead, the college employed two women who had failed to gain certification as athletic trainers.

The claims were dismissed by the trial court on the ground the players had signed a waiver.  The Superior Court reinstated the suits and now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed that ruling.  The court noted waivers against gross negligence and recklessness were ineffective and held there were sufficient facts for the players to present the case to a jury.

You can read more (although there isn't much) about the case here.