Cannon v. Armstrong Containers Inc.

Four groups of over 170 different plaintiffs brought similar claims alleging that they were allegedly harmed by presence of lead in paint generated by defendants. Dist. Ct. entered into case management order that essentially broke plaintiffs up into said groups that allowed two groups of plaintiffs to proceed to trial. Dist. Ct. granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on issue of negligent failure to warn, and, on appeal, Ct. of Appeals, held that defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ strict liability, failure to warn about dangers of lead claims, based on plaintiffs existing knowledge of said dangers. Accordingly, Dist. Ct. could properly grant defendants’ summary judgment motion on duty to warn issue with respect to second group of plaintiffs, where: (1) said group had conceded their negligence claims during initial round of summary judgment motions; and (2) Dist. Ct. could deny said group’s motion to reconsider based on “new” claim of presence of lead dust, where said claim could have been brought in first round of summary judgment motions. Also, third group of plaintiffs could be bound under law of the case doctrine with respect to prior duty to warn summary judgment rulings, since claims by instant group were part of the same case as second group of plaintiffs, and since once a court decides upon rule of law, that decision should govern same issues in same case. However, with respect to fourth group of plaintiffs who filed individual cases, Dist. Ct. erred in applying issue preclusion doctrine to preclude them from litigating duty to warn issue, where there was no privity between said plaintiffs and prior groups of plaintiffs, and where there was no agreement to be bound by prior rulings and where said group lacked control over litigation decisions made by prior groups of plaintiffs.