This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Product Liability

Michelle Ruff v. Turtle Wax Inc., Turtle Wax Industrial Inc., K Mart Corporation

Published: Sep. 22, 2007 | Result Date: Jul. 20, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: VC044293 Settlement –  Dismissal

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David K. Demergian


Defendant

David F. Wood

Seymour B. Everett III
(Everett Dorey LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Nita Paintal
(medical)

Ajmel Sangha
(medical)

Eugene Nowak
(medical)

Julie Kyker
(medical)

Kaveh Bagheri
(medical)

Howard Steinman
(medical)

Defendant

Frederick Fung
(medical)

Alan Szeftel
(medical)

Brian P. Daly CIH
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiff alleged that on or about May 29, 2005, she was using "Zip Wax Car Wash," "F21 Spray-On Wheel Cleaner" and "Wet 'n Black Tire Dressing," to wash and clean her pick-up truck in her front yard on a clear day. As a result of inhaling fumes from these products during the normal course of use, the plaintiff alleged she sustained dermal irritation and significant ongoing and permanent damage to her lungs. In particular, the plaintiff alleged she developed "hypersensitivity pneumonitis." The products were allegedly purchased by the plaintiff at K-Mart and designed, manufactured and distributed by Turtle Wax Inc. and Turtle Wax Industrial Inc.

The sole cause of action alleged in the complaint was products liability.

Contentions

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants denied all allegations and after sufficient discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on the grounds that no evidence of the alleged injury causing contaminant in the products existed, nor any evidence of a causative relationship between the plaintiff's alleged exposure and the products identified in the plaintiff's complaint.

Injuries

The plaintiff sought $4 million in general damages and $850,000 in special damages. Further, the plaintiff's alleged damages included, but were not limited to, wage loss, hospital and medical expenses, general damages, loss of earning capacity and other damages, including, but not limited to, future medical and related expenses, disfigurement, loss of quality of life.

Result

Dismissal with prejudice.

Other Information

The defendants' motion for summary judgment relied heavily on testimony obtained from the plaintiff's deposition, treating physicians and medical records. In addition, the defendants relied on analysis provided by Dr. Fred Fung, which included a declaration that the products could not have caused the plaintiff's alleged injures based in part on the product ingredients, mechanism and duration of alleged exposure. Shortly after the motion was filed, the plaintiff dismissed the entire action with prejudice. FILING DATE: May 26, 2006.


#120691

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390