. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 189101

DEFENDANT’S – PRODUCT LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN – PLAINTIFF SUES THREE TANNING SALONS IN PITTSBURGH AREA ALLEGING THAT THEY FAILED TO WARN OF THE DANGERS OF EXPOSURE TO UV RADIATION – MALIGNANT MELANOMA – SURGICAL REMOVAL OF CANCER REQUIRED.

Allegheny County, PA

The female plaintiff in this action sued the defendant tanning salons for failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers of exposing herself to ultraviolet radiation in tanning beds. The plaintiff maintained that because of this failure, she tanned at tanning salons for over ten years and developed malignant melanoma. The defendants all maintained that the plaintiff was adequately and properly warned of the dangers, but that for the sake of her appearance she chose to ignore the warnings and continue tanning.

Beginning in ________, when the female plaintiff was only 16 years old, continuing on through to ________, the plaintiff paid each of the defendants to obtain tanning services including the use of tanning beds. At all times relevant, the defendants knew or should have known that the use of and exposure to ultraviolet rays from tanning beds was carcinogenic to humans and that the use of tanning beds was harmful to human health. On June 25, ________, the plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant melanoma of the breast. She was 27 years old at the time of diagnosis.

She was subsequently diagnosed with malignant melanoma in situ of the leg and trunk. She will undergo medical screening for the rest of her life. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant tanning salons failed to provide proper and adequate warnings regarding the use of their tanning beds and tanning products. The plaintiff’s complaint specifically alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with warnings that exposure to UV light from tanning beds caused skin cancer and particularly substantially increased the risk of malignant melanoma.

In addition, the plaintiff maintained that the defendants misrepresented the safety of the tanning beds claiming that a session of tanning was safer than being exposed to the UV rays of the sun and claiming that tanning from a tanning bed was a safe tan. Further, the plaintiff maintained that the defendant salon that serviced the plaintiff when she was a minor was negligent for failing to obtain the informed consent of her parents.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered malignant melanoma of the legs, breast, abdomen and back, all of which have required surgical removal. The plaintiff is also at an increased risk of developing melanoma of the eye and premature death from undetected melanoma in situ. The plaintiff suffers from significant anxiety and depression and maintained that she is embarrassed by the scarring on her body. The defendants all denied being negligent and argued that the plaintiff signed a waiver at each location that she fully understood, and accepted and assumed all risks associated with indoor tanning.The jury found in favor of all of the defendants.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.