In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
722 F.3d 838 (2013)

- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Purchasers of front-loading washing machines (purchasers) (plaintiffs) sued the manufacturer of the machines, Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) (defendant), on theories of breach of warranty, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn for a design defect that promoted the growth of mold and mildew inside the machines. The purchasers claimed that Whirlpool knew about the design defects but continued to sell the machines without warning consumers of the propensity of the machines to incubate mold and emanate bad odors. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Ohio, and the purchasers successfully moved for certification of a class action on the issue of liability. The court reserved the issue of damages for individual adjudication. Whirlpool appealed the order certifying the class, and the circuit court affirmed the certification. After an unsuccessful petition for rehearing, Whirlpool petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted Whirlpool’s petition, vacated the appellate judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the ruling in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, which had reversed certification of a liability and damages class because the damages could not be measured on a class-wide basis. The circuit court reconsidered the district court’s certification of the liability class.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stranch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.