Butler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Not available (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions for class certification purposes if resolving the common issues in a single class action is more efficient than litigating them in numerous individual suits. The existence of a central, common question regarding a product's defectiveness is sufficient for predominance, even if there are variations in product design or if not all class members have yet suffered tangible harm.
Facts:
- Sears sold Kenmore-brand front-loading washing machines that were manufactured by Whirlpool Corporation.
- One group of plaintiffs alleges that since 2001, the machines have had a design defect causing biofilm and mold to form, which emits noxious odors.
- During the period in question, Whirlpool made five design modifications related to the mold issue across 27 different Kenmore models.
- A second group of plaintiffs alleges that in 2004, a supplier's manufacturing change created a defect in the machines' central control unit, causing them to shut down unexpectedly.
- Sears continued to ship machines with the defective control units after the manufacturing process was corrected in 2005.
- Sears allegedly knew about the control unit problem but charged owners hundreds of dollars for repairs.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Sears in federal district court, alleging breach of warranty under the laws of six states.
- The suit comprised two proposed classes: one for a 'mold claim' and one for a 'control unit claim'.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the mold claim class.
- The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the control unit claim class.
- The plaintiffs from the mold claim class petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to review the denial of certification.
- Sears petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to review the grant of certification for the control unit class.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), do common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions when a class action alleges a common product defect in washing machines, even if there are minor variations in the machines' design and not all class members have experienced the resulting harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge.
Yes, common questions of law and fact predominate. Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) is fundamentally a question of efficiency, which favors resolving a core liability question on a class-wide basis rather than in thousands of individual suits. For the mold claim, the central question—were the machines defectively designed to permit mold accumulation?—is common to the entire class, regardless of minor design variations which could be addressed through subclasses if necessary. The fact that some owners may not have experienced odors is a merits defense that Sears can raise for the class as a whole, not a bar to certification. Similarly, for the control unit claim, the question of whether the unit was defective is common to all class members, and this common question predominates over individual questions of damages.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the predominance inquiry for class certification should focus on judicial efficiency and the existence of a central, unifying legal or factual question. By prioritizing the common issue of a product's defectiveness over individual variations in damages or product models, the court makes it easier to certify consumer class actions, particularly those involving numerous small-value claims. This ruling solidifies the class action as a viable tool for consumer redress in product liability cases where the cost of individual litigation would be prohibitive, preventing companies from avoiding liability for widespread defects.
Unlock the full brief for Butler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.