Hatfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Background

Robin Hatfield, individually and on behalf of her minor child, C.H., sued Walmart Inc. under Tennessee law. The complaint alleged that Hatfield consumed Walmart’s store-branded acetaminophen while pregnant, that C.H. has autism spectrum disorder, and that Walmart’s product label did not warn that prenatal acetaminophen exposure could be associated with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The asserted claims included strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect based on inadequate warnings and precautions, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, strict liability misrepresentation, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), breach of implied warranty, and liability as an apparent manufacturer.

The opinion addressed two grounds in Walmart’s motion to dismiss: whether the TCPA claim was expressly preempted by federal law and whether the remaining common-law claims had to be dismissed because they were subsumed within the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA). The court applied Tennessee law after determining that Tennessee had the stronger connection to the claims under the relevant choice-of-law analysis.

TCPA Claim and Federal Preemption

The court granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss the TCPA claim. The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act contains an express-preemption provision barring state requirements concerning non-prescription drugs that differ from, add to, or are not identical with federal requirements. The parties did not dispute that the TCPA claim fell within that provision because it concerned representations and labeling for an over-the-counter drug.

The court then considered whether the TCPA claim was preserved by the federal statute’s exception for actions under a state’s “product liability law.” It concluded that the exception did not apply. The court reasoned that product-liability law generally concerns traditional tort-based claims seeking relief for personal injury or property damage caused by defective products. By contrast, the TCPA is a consumer-protection statute modeled on a federal law, was not derived from the common law of torts, and allows claims based solely on economic loss. The court therefore held that the TCPA claim was expressly preempted and dismissed it.

TPLA Argument

The court denied Walmart’s motion to dismiss the remaining claims on the ground that they were subsumed within the TPLA. The TPLA provides a statutory framework for product-liability claims, including claims based on strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, failure to warn, and misrepresentation.

The court rejected Walmart’s argument that the claims had to be dismissed because Hatfield did not identify the TPLA in the master complaint or short-form complaint. A complaint’s failure to cite a statute, or to cite the correct statute, does not determine the merits of a claim; the factual allegations control. The court also explained that plaintiffs may bring TPLA claims using multiple traditional common-law theories of product liability. Walmart did not argue that the pleadings failed to state those theories or provide adequate notice. The court accordingly denied dismissal of the remaining claims on this ground.

Disposition

The court granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss in part: Hatfield’s TCPA claim was dismissed as preempted by federal law, and Walmart’s request to dismiss the remaining claims because they were subsumed within the TPLA was denied. Judge Denise Cote signed the opinion and order.