McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc.

Background

David A. McDougall sued CRC Industries, Inc. (CRC) and John Doe Companies 1–10 in his personal capacity and as trustee for the next of kin of Cynthia A. McDougall. The complaint alleged that Cynthia McDougall was killed in a July 22, 2019, crash after Kyle Neumiller allegedly inhaled CRC Duster, became intoxicated, crossed the center line, and struck her vehicle.

The complaint alleged that CRC manufactured and sold a compressed-gas dusting spray containing 1,1-difluoroethane. McDougall claimed that CRC knew people intentionally inhaled dusters for their intoxicating effects, including while driving. He also alleged that CRC advertised a bittering agent intended to deter inhalation abuse, but that the agent was ineffective or was not included as advertised. He further alleged that CRC’s warnings did not adequately address inhalation, harm to bystanders, or operating a vehicle after inhalation.

The complaint asserted eight counts: defective design, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn under strict products liability; negligence; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; Minnesota statutory claims; and public nuisance. CRC moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and asked whether they made the claims plausible. Applying Minnesota law, the court concluded that McDougall plausibly alleged that CRC owed a duty to protect foreseeable users and bystanders from foreseeable dangers. The court also concluded that he plausibly alleged that the product’s design and the ineffective or missing bittering agent were substantial factors in the injury.

The court allowed the manufacturing-defect claim to proceed because McDougall alleged that the product was defective when it left CRC’s control. The failure-to-warn claim also survived because McDougall plausibly alleged that CRC knew or should have known that inhalation abuse, driving after inhalation, and resulting harm to bystanders were foreseeable.

The express-warranty claim survived because McDougall alleged that CRC warranted that the product contained a bittering agent intended to prevent inhalant abuse and then failed to provide an effective deterrent. The court also allowed the implied-warranty claim to proceed as an alternative theory at the pleading stage.

For claims under Minnesota’s Private Attorney General Act, the court found that McDougall plausibly alleged both a public benefit and a causal connection between CRC’s alleged conduct and his damages. Those claims included alleged violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, False Statement in Advertising Act, and Unlawful Practices Act.

The court dismissed the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim because that law’s private injunctive remedy requires a plaintiff to face a risk of future harm to himself. The court determined that the alleged continuing emotional effects of the past death did not satisfy that requirement. The court also dismissed the public-nuisance claim because a private plaintiff must show a special or unusual injury not shared by the general public, and the alleged loss of a loved one in a crash did not meet that standard.

Disposition

The order granted in part and denied in part CRC’s motion to dismiss. It denied the motion as to Counts 1–3, covering defective design, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn; Count 4, negligence; and Counts 5 and 6, express and implied warranty. It granted the motion as to the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim in Count 7, and those claims were dismissed with prejudice. It denied the motion as to the Minnesota Attorney General Act, Unfair Trade Practices Act, False Statement in Advertising Act, and Unlawful Practices Act claims in Count 7. It granted the motion as to Count 8, public nuisance, and dismissed that count with prejudice.