by KPMLAW | Aug 15, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Author: Lee Hoyle Editor: Brian A. Cafritz In products liability cases, it seems that any entity that touches the product could have liability. Manufacturers, designers, installers, sellers, and repair companies all face exposure for defective products merely because of their relationships to the product. In such cases, defendants have long relied on the “empty chair” defense. The defense, which sounds more dramatic than it is, simply means that a defendant claims that someone else, someone not before the court, is responsible for the injuries. The defense survived a challenge before the Virginia Supreme Court, but the reasoning of the decision may complicate attempts to raise the defense in the future. In Dorman v. State Indus., ___ Va. ___, 2016 Va. LEXIS 77 (June 16, 2016), the plaintiffs were several people who suffered carbon monoxide poisoning from a gas fired hot water heater, which they claimed was the result of the design of the heater. The plaintiffs brought suit against several defendants, but only the manufacturer remained at trial. The theories at trial were negligence and breach of warranty. The manufacturer denied liability on the grounds that the heater was improperly installed and maintained, even though the installer and maintenance companies were not named in the case. At trial, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant could not argue the “empty chair” defense and point the finger at the installer or the maintenance company. They claimed that because Virginia follows Joint and Several Liability, any negligence of the manufacturer made it liable for the whole verdict. As a result, the negligence of another entity was not relevant unless such negligence constituted...
