Firefighters' Hearing-Loss Suits Consolidated as Multicounty Litigation
Suits claiming firefighters suffered hearing damage from exposure to sirens are proliferating around the country, prompting an order from the Superior Court of New Jersey for centralized management of suits against siren manufacturer Federal Signal Corp.
January 16, 2018 at 04:22 PM
4 minute read
Suits claiming firefighters suffered hearing damage from exposure to sirens are proliferating around the country, prompting an order from the Superior Court of New Jersey for centralized management of suits against siren manufacturer Federal Signal Corp.
On Jan. 5, acting Administrative Director of the Courts Glenn Grant announced consolidation of suits by 70 current and former firefighters before Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson in Atlantic County. The order pertained to two suits each from Essex and Hudson counties and one each from Cape May, Morris, Middlesex and Union counties.
The plaintiffs claim they suffered hearing loss due to long-term exposure to siren noise at high volumes. The suits claim the company failed to protect the plaintiffs from sound that was projected rearward, into the cabin of the fire truck. The suits target two products made by Federal Signal: the Q-Siren and the eQ2B Siren.
Federal Signal has settled some early cases, including one for $3.8 million in 2011, according to media accounts. More recently, the company says, it has received defense verdicts in seven cases tried to juries around the country.
Plaintiffs and defendants in the New Jersey cases both favored consolidation and asked for a venue in Bergen County, but the latter request was denied.
A pair of similar cases are pending in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Alvarez v. American LaFrance and Carlucci v. Federal Signal. Those cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in June 2017, and are in the midst of discovery. Attorneys from Marc J. Bern & Partners in New York, who filed the six suits against Federal Signal in Superior Court of New Jersey, also filed the state's two federal court cases.
Plaintiff lawyer Thomas Joyce, of the Bern firm, said in court documents that he would move for bifurcation of the case, with liability to be tried separately from damages. “Instantly, bifurcation on the issue of liability would, if defendant prevails, clear the court's docket. In the alternative, if plaintiffs prevail, it would be a powerful factor to induce substantive settlement talks prior to the damages phase of the litigation.”
But Kenneth Meyer of McCarter & English in Newark said in a court filing that he opposed bifurcation, since prior cases had shown how liability, causation and damages could efficiently be tried together.
Counsel for both sides sought a Bergen County venue, citing its convenience to the Newark airport as well as McCarter & English's offices in Newark and a majority of the parties. Joyce conceded, however, that Bergen and Middlesex counties already have seven mass torts each while Atlantic only had four. Grant's order did not say why Atlantic County was picked.
Meyer said in a court document that Federal Signal denies causing the plaintiffs' alleged hearing loss, or that it produces too much rearward noise. He said each plaintiff's case would require relevant evidence to be obtained from employers, medical providers, unions, the military, and insurance providers. Such proceedings would be more efficient if it takes place under one judge, Meyer said in court papers supporting consolidation.
Meyer said each plaintiff's unique history of noise exposure would be relevant to their bid for damages. That would encompass the design of each fire truck, where the siren was placed, where in the truck a plaintiff sat, the number and length of emergency runs he made, his years of service, and any steps he took to protect himself from noise, like rolling up the window or wearing earplugs, Meyer said.
Joyce and others in his firm did not return calls about the case. Meyer declined to discuss the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
4 minute readEssex County Jury Returns $1.8 Million Verdict for Construction Site Fall
3 minute readLowenstein Hires Ex-FTX US General Counsel Ryne Miller to Lead Its Commodities, Derivatives Practice
3 minute readDrugmaker Wins $70.5M After Fed Judge Says Generic Sales Were Blocked
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250