Federal Court denies motion to dismiss claim against Amazon for damages caused by product sold by a "third party seller" through Amazon's website

Two years ago I reported that a California Appellate Court held that Amazon can be liable in products liability for products sold by other vendors through Amazon.  See here.  A few months later, the Texas Supreme Court reached the exact opposite result.  See here.

I am writing about this today again because a a federal court in Louisiana recently declined to issue judgment in favor of Amazon on its argument that it is not liable for products sold by about two million “third party sellers,” such as the one that sold a defective battery charger that caused a deadly house fire resulting in this wrongful death lawsuit.  You can read the decision here.

Louisiana Court of Appeals rejects wrongful life claims

 About two weeks ago the Louisiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion in which it joins the majority of jurisdictions in rejecting the notion of wrongful life. The case involved a claim brought by the parents of a child born with Down syndrome. They argued that they would have terminated the pregnancy had they been informed of a lab test that showed the child was at risk of being born with the condition. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the claim noting that people with Down syndrome are valued members of society and actively participate in educational, social and recreational activities. 

The case is called Robinson v. Mitchell and you can read the opinion here.

Louisiana Supreme Court holds that plaintiffs do not need to show that they would have been able to collect the judgment in the "case within the case" to support malpractice claim

As you know, when a plaintiff sues a lawyer for malpractice in a litigation matter alleging that the defendant's representation caused the plaintiff to lose a claim, the plaintiff has to show that they would have won the case had it not been for the negligence of the defendant (the lawyer).  In torts terms, this is what the plaintiff has to argue and prove in order to establish the element of cause in fact.  Typically, however, courts hold that showing that the plaintiff would have won the original case (sometimes referred to as "the case within the case") is not enough because if the plaintiff would not have been able to recover anything in that case then the plaintiff can't establish an actual "loss" (the element of injury, in torts terms).

This means that typically, the plaintiff has to show not only that the plaintiff would have won the original case but for the negligence of the lawyer, but also that the plaintiff would have been able to collect the judgment (or at least part of it) as a result.

I am writing about this today because the Legal Profession blog reported a few days ago that the Louisiana Supreme Court recently decided a case that appears to be the first time a court has held that the plaintiff in a legal malpractice suit need not prove that the underlying lost judgment was collectible.

The case is called Ewing v. Westport Insurance and you can read it here. 

Louisiana approves tort reform bill -- UPDATED

About two weeks ago, the Louisiana legislature passed a tort reform bill that the Governor said he would sign, (after he had vetoed an earlier version).

The bill, which appears to be explicitly designed to favor the auto insurance industry adopts a limitation of the collateral source rule, removes the ban on mentioning whether a plaintiff was wearing a seat belt, limits when an insurance company's name can be mentioned in court, and reduces the threshold for jury trials from $50,000 to $10,000.

The first two measures are common in tort reform bills, but the measure related to the jury is strange because usually juries are thought of being more generous that judges when calculating damages.  It is not clear, why a tort reform bill designed to favor defendants tries to expand the number of cases that will be tried by juries.

Like most, if not all, tort reform bills, this one fails to address the real issue.  The bill is supposed to help lower car insurance rates, but  instead of drafting a bill that regulates those rates, the legislature drafted a bill to help insurance companies make more money while doing nothing to lower the bills.  I suppose it remains to be seen what will happen but more than likely, the consumers will get screwed twice: the insurance rates will remain the same (or continue to rise), and the injured victims will get lower compensation....  unless they miscalculated the gamble on whether juries will be less generous.

The TortsProf blog has more on the story here.

UPDATE 8/2/20: The Governor signed the bill....  Story here.