Sherry Elaine Butler v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Background

Sherry Elaine Butler alleged that she purchased and used Fabuloso Multi-Purpose Cleaner to clean her home and salon. She alleged that she was diagnosed with pseudomonas, a bacterial infection, on January 21, 2023, and later experienced respiratory problems. She claimed that the Fabuloso products were contaminated with pseudomonas bacteria and that exposure to the products caused her illness.

Butler asserted product-liability claims based on negligence, strict liability, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The opinion states that Colgate-Palmolive manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells Fabuloso products. It also states that Colgate recalled more than 4.9 million Fabuloso cleaners on or about February 8, 2023, because of contamination with pseudomonas species bacteria.

Motion and governing law

Colgate-Palmolive moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. It argued that Butler had not alleged the nature of the defect, identified the products she used, or explained how the products caused her injury.

The court determined that Texas law applied because, under New York’s choice-of-law rules, a product-liability injury occurs for these purposes where the injury happened. Under Texas law, a manufacturer may be strictly liable for injuries caused by an unreasonably dangerous product. A manufacturing defect exists when a product differs from its intended specifications or output in a way that makes it unreasonably dangerous. The court stated that a plaintiff need not directly prove how the product became defective or identify a specific engineering or structural defect.

Court’s reasoning

The court rejected Colgate-Palmolive’s argument that Butler’s allegations were merely conclusory. It found that Butler had alleged the specific product—Fabuloso Multi-Purpose Cleaner—the specific defect—contamination with pseudomonas bacteria—and the alleged causal connection—contracting a pseudomonas infection after using the contaminated product.

The court acknowledged that the complaint did not identify whether Butler purchased one of the lots covered by the recall, or state where and when she bought the product. But it concluded that the cases cited by Colgate-Palmolive did not establish that a plaintiff must provide those details at the pleading stage. The court also distinguished cases involving products or defects that were identified only generally, noting that Butler had identified both the brand and the specific product, including its manufacturer.

Disposition

The court denied Colgate-Palmolive’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 20. The opinion resolved only whether the complaint adequately stated claims at the pleading stage; it did not determine the ultimate merits of Butler’s allegations.