Velazquez v. Abbott Laboratories
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156427
D.P.R.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Morales-Vazquez and Guzman-Merly sue Abbott in diversity for strict product liability and negligence on behalf of their minor child, F.J.G.M.
- Plaintiffs allege Similac Go & Grow formula contaminated by beetles caused gastroenteritis and hospitalization in Sept. 2010.
- Abbott recalled Similac powder from the Sturgis facility after beetles were detected in Sept. 2010; FDA notices followed.
- Abbott conducted extensive testing; 49 beetles/parts found in 30,486 containers (0.16%); recall issued Sept. 22, 2010.
- Treating physician Dr. Vargas-Raposo testified no evidence the formula caused illness; Abbott’s expert Dr. Hyman found no causal link; no medical expert for plaintiffs.
- Court grants Abbott summary judgment on both strict liability and negligence after concluding lack of defect evidence and causation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the product was defective under strict liability | Morales asserts defect via recall and contamination evidence | Abbott contends no admissible defect evidence and no causation | No material defect shown; recalls/notice inadmissible for defect proof; no triable issue on defect |
| Whether the Similac contamination caused F.J.G.M.’s illness | Causation shown by recall/contamination and plaintiff witnesses | No causal link; illness likely due to non-product factors; lack of expert causation evidence | No causation showing; plaintiff cannot prove the formula caused the illness |
| Admissibility of recall notices under Rule 407/403 | recalls show defect | Remedial measures are inadmissible to prove defect; probative value limited | Recall notices excluded as to defect and causation; insufficient to create triable issue |
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove causation/defect | Strict liability allows circumstantial evidence | Causation and defect require expert testimony given scientific issues | Court accepts lack of expert here; still finds no triable issue on defect or causation |
| Negligence under Puerto Rico Article 1802 standard | Abbott breached duty; evidence of standard of care raise issues | Abbott’s testing/audits complied with industry standards; no breach shown | No breach; negligence claim grants summary judgment for Abbott |
Key Cases Cited
- Isla Nena Air Servs., Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 449 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2006) (Puerto Rico strict liability adopts Restatement §402A principles)
- Perez-Trujillo v. Volvo Car Corp., 137 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 1998) (Strict liability elements and circumstantial evidence framework)
- Collazo-Santiago v. Toyota Motor Corp., 937 F. Supp. 134 (D.P.R. 1996) (Circumstantial evidence sufficient in strict liability where appropriate)
- Raymond v. Raymond Corp., 938 F.2d 1518 (1st Cir. 1991) (Rule 403/407 considerations for subsequent remedial measures)
- Keller v. United States, 38 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 1994) (Rule 403 probative value vs. unfair prejudice in evidence)