Suit against a helmet manufacturer under the Safety Act
Fabian v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc., 10-5009, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim, in plaintiff's suit against the defendant, helmet manufacturer, for misrepresenting the safety of its helmets.
Fabian v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc., 10-5009, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim, in plaintiff's suit against the defendant, helmet manufacturer, for misrepresenting the safety of its helmets.
In reversing and remanding, the court held that, because plaintiff has
nudged his claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, he
deserves a shot at additional factual development which is what
discovery is designed to give him. The court also held that that the
Safety Act does not expressly create a private enforcement action does
not by itself defeat plaintiff's claims, as he has filed each claim
under Tennessee law, which authorizes private enforcement actions for
fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. Lastly, the court held that
plaintiff's claims do not "actually conflict" with the requirements of,
or the purposes of the Safety Act or Standard 218, as they do not
change Standard 218's technical requirements, they do not disturb
Standard 218's labeling requirements, and they do not add a new
requirements that interferes with what Standard 218 already requires.
Related Link:
Related Link:
- Read the Sixth Circuit's Full Decision in Fabian v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc., 10-5009
ShareThis
