Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that dismissal was not warranted in a products liability and bystander liability action.

Olivia Hernandez was working at Comfort Revolution Manufacturing of Mississippi, LLC, when a pillow became caught in the mold of a pillow molding machine manufactured by Cannon USA, Inc. Hernandez attempted to dislodge the pillow, but her head became pinned between the molds, and the machine crushed her skull. Her nephew, Hector Ontiveros Jr., was on the assembly line at the time of the incident and attempted unsuccessfully to stop the machine before it crushed Hernandez.

Ontiveros and others sued Cannon USA, Inc., among others, alleging claims for products liability and bystander liability. The defense moved to dismiss the bystander liability claim for failure to state a claim.

Denying the motion, the court held that it was too early in the litigation process to determine whether the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a bystander claim against the defendant. Mississippi has not directly addressed the relationship between an aunt and nephew for purposes of bystander liability, the court said, adding that the state high court failed to create a brightline rule regarding the types of relationships necessary to constitute a legally close relationship under state law.

Thus, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim was facially plausible and above the speculative level required to grant a motion to dismiss.

Citation: Nolazco v. Cannon USA Inc., 2024 WL 4376268 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 2, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: Cary M. Toland, Brownsville, Texas; and AAJ members Casey Langston Lott and Thomas O. Cooley, both of Bonneville, Miss.