Background
In 2015, American Airlines contracted with Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc. to manufacture new uniforms. Following the rollout, hundreds of employees reported health issues ranging from itchy eyes to severe allergic reactions. Some employees claimed proximity reactions simply from being near others wearing the uniforms. American eventually replaced the uniforms with alternatives from other manufacturers. Plaintiffs sued under the Class Action Fairness Act, asserting products liability and intentional tort claims. The district court excluded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses and granted summary judgment for the defendants.
The court’s reasoning
The court addressed subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, noting that while a third amended complaint dropped class allegations, a subsequent fourth amended complaint reinstated them, thereby securing jurisdiction. On the merits, the court adopted the district court’s reasoning regarding the exclusion of expert witnesses, finding no evidence of a specific defect or causation. The court rejected the application of the Tweedy doctrine for strict liability, distinguishing the case from scenarios where a product fails to perform as expected without explanation. The court also found that traditional res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the plaintiffs could not prove the injury occurred in the absence of negligence or that the defendant maintained exclusive control over the uniforms.
Simply put, the Tweedy doctrine does not apply here.
Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc., No. 25-1963 (7th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the necessity of reliable expert testimony in complex products liability cases involving alleged chemical exposures and limits the scope of res ipsa loquitur in scenarios lacking clear product malfunction.