Lisa Godbey Wood

Carrier v. JORDAAN

District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2010-09-22 · cited 4×

In this case, buyers Guy and Jacquelyn Carrier sued seller Tim Jordaan and Aventure Catamarans after a new fifty-foot catamaran vessel they purchased sank during its first voyage from Florida to Virginia, alleging claims including breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, strict liability, negligence, emotional distress, fraud, and violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After the defendants failed to retain counsel or appear in court despite warnings, the court entered default against them and considered the buyers' motion for default judgment. The court granted the motion as to liability on the strict liability, warranty, and Magnuson-Moss claims because the defendants did not show cause why judgment should not be entered, but denied it on the emotional distress, fraud, and FDUTPA claims; it deferred any damages award pending a hearing due to insufficient detail in the buyers' calculations, including for punitive damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Tootle v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2010-09-03 · cited 7×

In Tootle v. CSX Transportation, Inc., a former CSX utility worker sued the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the former Federal Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts, claiming that her shoulder injuries resulted from cumulative trauma caused by job duties such as cleaning locomotives and lifting heavy objects. The district court granted CSX’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff offered no evidence that CSX breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace or that any equipment was defective under the safety statutes, noting that speculation about better equipment or assistance and statistics from other employees’ different injuries did not establish negligence or foreseeability. Because FELA requires some proof of breach and is not a strict-liability statute, the absence of such evidence required dismissal.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

Terrill v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2010-09-03 · cited 15×

This case involves five individual plaintiffs from different states who purchased Frigidaire front-load washing machines manufactured by Electrolux, alleging that design defects in the drum, gasket, and bellows caused persistent mold and mildew buildup that damaged clothing and permeated homes; the plaintiffs further claimed that Electrolux knew of the defect via internal service documents but failed to warn consumers or honor warranties. The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and related causes of action, while seeking to certify a nationwide or multi-state class. The court granted in part and denied in part Electrolux’s motion to dismiss and motion to partially strike class allegations, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in full. The core reasoning centered on plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy state-specific notice and privity requirements for warranty claims, variations in state laws that precluded class treatment, and insufficient predominance and typicality for class certification under Rule 23.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

FPL Food, LLC v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2009-11-12 · cited 2×

Silverstein v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2009-10-30 · cited 6×

Tobar v. United States

District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2009-09-21 · cited 1×

Affiliations

Decision record

Lisa Godbey Wood

Affiliations

Decision record