ILNews

Justices rule in favor of cup manufacturers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The manufacturer defendants in a suit claiming defects in their measuring cup caused the death of a 9-year-old boy are entitled to summary judgment, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed today. The undisputed evidence in the case showed if there was an overdose of codeine in the boy's bloodstream, it wasn't caused by any alleged defects in the cup itself.

In Jim and Jill Kovach, individually and on behalf of deceased minor child Matthew Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, et al., No. 49S04-0902-CV-88, the high court found the causation issue in the case dispositive as to all causes of action. The Kovaches asserted four claims against Caligor Midwest and other manufactures of the medicine cup under the Indiana Product Liability Act and the Uniform Commercial Code. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the claims. Justice Theodore Boehm noted that the Supreme Court has yet to address whether the PLA preempts warranty-based theories of recovery for physical harm, but decided not to resolve that issue because it was only raised by amici. The high court also declined to address several collateral issues the parties raised on appeal.

The parents claimed if the medicine cup had been better suited as a precision measuring device or had contained a warning that it wasn't suitable for precision measurement, their son wouldn't have received an overdose. The nurse that gave him the codeine testified she gave him the 15mL prescribed by filling the cup up halfway; Jim Kovach argued he saw the cup filled all the way up to the 30 mL level.

An autopsy showed Matthew had more than twice the recommended therapeutic level of the drug in his system, and the undisputed evidence in the case shows if there was an overdose, it wasn't caused by an imprecise measurement of the drug attributable to less than readily discernable marks, wrote the justice.

"Rather, if the codeine was the cause of Matthew's death, it was due to an erroneous double dosage of 30 mL of codeine when Matthew was supposed to receive 15 mL. The accident therefore cannot be attributed to any alleged defects in the cup itself," he wrote.

The justices also declined to address whether a failure to warn against the cup's use for precision measurement was required because even if it had been given, it wouldn't have prevented the overdose, Justice Boehm wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT