Product Liability

• Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness Corp.

Facts: Plaintiff member of 24 Hour Fitness Center alleged she was injured on a “Stairmaster” and sued 24 Hour Fitness for strict products liability. Plaintiff alleged that the “dominant” purpose for her membership was for the use of the exercise machines at the gym. The 24 Hour countered that the primary purpose of all of its memberships was the “provision of fitness services.”

Holding: Affirmed. The dominant purpose of the plaintiff’s membership with the fitness center was for the provision of fitness services, and for that reason the defendant was not a proper products liability defendant.

• Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., et al.

Facts: Plaintiff developed tardive dyskinesia, a debilitating and incurable neurological disorder. She alleges that she developed the condition after taking metoclopramide for almost four years. The name brand form of the drug, Reglan, is manufactured by Wyeth, Inc. Plaintiff only used the generic version of the drug. Plaintiff claimed that the Wyeth knew or should have known of the tendency of doctors to prescribe the drug for long periods of time, even though it had only been approved for 12 weeks of use. Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that she was injuriously exposed to metoclopramide due to Wyeth's dissemination of false, misleading, and/or incomplete warnings about the drug's side effects. The court granted the summary judgment motion filed by Wyeth on the ground that a name-brand manufacturer does not owe a duty of care to users of generic versions of the drug, which are manufactured by other companies.

Holding: Reversed. The common law duty to use due care by a name-brand prescription drug manufacturer when providing product warnings extends to both consumers of its product and those whose doctors foreseeably rely on the name-brand manufacturer's product information when prescribing a drug, even if the generic form of the drug is ultimately used to fill the prescription.

• Arriaga v. CitiCapital Commercial Corp.

Facts: An employee was injured when his finger became entangled in a glue spreading machine. Originally, JLA Credit Corporation had entered into a finance lease with AVP, Ltd. Klor Machinery sold the machine to JLA who took title to the machine, paid for it, and leased it to AVP. Klor shipped the machine directly to AVP. While in possession of the machine, AVP removed one corner of a safety guard. Near the end of the lease term, AVP entered into an agreement to sell the machine to Orepak, Plaintiff's employer. Orepark wired the purchase amount to CitiCapital Commercial Corp., the successor in interest to JLA. Orepak took possession of the machine, after which Plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff filed a Complaint, contending that CitiCapital was strictly liable for his injuries because CitiCapital was instrumental in placing the machine in the stream of commerce. CitiCapital prevailed on its motion for summary judgment, which was filed on the basis that it was a finance lessor only, and not part of the chain of commerce.

Holding: Affirmed. Strict liability does not apply to a party that only acts as a finance lessor and merely provides funding. Further, CitiCapital was outside the original chain of distribution and is not liable as an entity instrumental in placing the product in the stream of commerce.