ILNews

Owners of foul-smelling washing machines granted class certification by 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has granted class certification to owners of odor-emitting Kenmore washers, allowing their lawsuit against Sears, Roebuck and Co. to go forward.   

In one ruling on two separate class actions against Sears, the 7th Circuit reversed the denial of certification of class regarding a mold claim and affirmed the grant of class certification regarding the control unit claim. The lead plaintiff in Larry Butler, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sears, Roebuck And Co., Nos. 11-8029, 12-8030, is a resident of Indiana.

Both class action claims arise from alleged defects in the Kenmore-brand Sears washing machines. The “mold claim” complains of a defect that causes a mass of microbes to form in the machine’s drum that creates mold which emits bad odors. The “control unit claim” complains of a malfunction in a computer device that causes the machine to stop even though nothing is wrong.

The 7th Circuit accepted the appeals in order to clarify the concept of “predominance” in class action litigation.  

For the mold claim, Sears contended since different models had different defects, the common questions of fact about the mold problem and its consequences do not predominate over individual questions of fact.

Conversely, the 7th Circuit found that the basic question in the litigation was “Were the machines defective in permitting mold to accumulate and generate noxious odors?” And this question is common to the entire mold class even though the answer may vary with the differences in the design of the machine. The individual questions are the amount of damages owed to particular owners of the washing machines.

In considering the question of predominance, the court found the class action procedure would be efficient not only in cost but also in efficacy. The stakes in an individual case would be too small to justify the expense of suing which means that denial of class certification would preclude any relief.

For the control unit claim, the court ruled it is more efficient to resolve the question of whether the washing machines were defective in a single proceeding than for it to be litigated separately in hundreds of different trials.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT