What's New in Massachusetts Law
Products Liability – Duty to Design – Following Specifications of Another
In affirming the trial judge’s instructions of law to the jury and the jury’s subsequent verdict for the defendant, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the manufacturer of a specialized trailer was not liable under Massachusetts law to a plaintiff-employee injured at work due to a design defect in the trailer. The First Circuit reasoned that the manufacturer had not breached an implied warranty of merchantability in the circumstances because it merely followed the design specifications that were provided by the plaintiff’s employer and because any alleged defect in these specifications was not “so obviously bad that a competent contractor would realize that there was a grave chance that his product would be dangerously unsafe” under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 404, comment a. Hatch v. Trail King Industries, Inc., 656 F.3d 59 (August 29, 2011).
Consumer Protection Statute – Sufficiency of Demand Letter
The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a defendant-cruise ship operator violated the Massachusetts consumer protection statute by failing to disclose the complete terms of its cancellation and refund policies as required by the state Attorney General’s travel service regulations. In so ruling, the court concluded that the demand letter required by G. L. c. 93A, section 9 provided adequate notice of the plaintiffs-passengers’ claims in the circumstances, even though the letter had failed to identify the specific Attorney General regulation involved. Under the statute, consumers must specifically describe the factual practices to which they object, but not the complete legal basis of their claims. Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 460 Mass. 500 (September, 2011).
Leased Vehicle - Lack of Duty of Care
A lessor of a vehicle was not responsible for a mechanical defect that first arose long after the vehicle left its possession. While the lessor had a continuing right under its agreement with the lessee-driver to inspect and maintain the vehicle in order to preserve its value and utility, the lessor was not obligated under the lease agreement to do so in the circumstances. As a result, the lessor did not owe a duty of care to the estate of a pedestrian killed as a result of the vehicle's defective condition. Kassis v. Lease and Rental Management Corp., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 784 (July, 2011).
