In cases arising out of defective products, both the claims and defenses largely hinge on evidence that suggests or disproves liability. As such, in many instances, a plaintiff will attempt to introduce evidence of other harmful events caused by the product in question and any litigation that arises out of such incidents. In turn, defendants will typically fight to exclude such evidence, arguing that it is prejudicial. In a recent Florida ruling, the court addressed the admissibility of a settlement agreement in a case involving a defective product in subsequent litigation involving that product. If you suffered harm because of a faulty or dangerous device, you might be owed significant compensation, and it is smart to meet with a skillful Florida product liability lawyer to assess what evidence you may be able to use in support of your claims.
Facts of the Underlying Case
It is reported that plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting that it manufactured and sold earplugs that were dangerous. Specifically, it is alleged that the earplugs failed to actually block noise as intended, resulting in tinnitus, hearing loss, and other damages. Another lawsuit, referred to as a whistleblower or qui tam action, was filed against the defendant as well. In the qui tam case it was alleged that the defendant knew that the earplugs were defective and continued to sell them regardless. The qui tam action ultimately settled.
Allegedly, prior to trial, the defendant filed numerous motions seeking to preclude the plaintiff from introducing certain evidence at trial. In part, the defendant argued that evidence of the allegations in the qui tam complaint and the qui tam settlement should be excluded as irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and inadmissible hearsay. Continue reading ›