Expert Witness Blog
In the case of Moore v. Combe Incorporated, No. 1:20-cv-01185 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 27, 2023), the testimony of a Labels & Warnings Expert Witness played a pivotal role in assessing whether a consumer product’s labeling sufficiently warned users about potential health risks, specifically in a lawsuit involving claims of skin depigmentation.
Background of the Case
Plaintiffs Timothy and Jean Moore sued Combe Incorporated, the manufacturer of “Just For Men Control GX Grey Reducing Shampoo,” alleging that the product caused Timothy Moore to develop vitiligo—a condition marked by patchy loss of skin pigmentation. The Moores claimed that Combe failed to provide adequate warnings about known risks linked to the shampoo’s active ingredient, p-Phenylenediamine (PPD), a chemical long associated with adverse skin reactions.
The lawsuit included claims for failure to warn, negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. The plaintiffs argued that the shampoo lacked clear and conspicuous warnings regarding PPD and its potential to cause depigmentation, and that Moore would not have used the product had he been properly informed.
Role of the Labels & Warnings Expert Witness
To support their case, the plaintiffs retained Dr. Lila Fitzgerald Laux, an expert in human factors and warnings with over 30 years of experience in evaluating product labeling for consumer comprehension and safety communication. Her role was to analyze whether the warnings on the shampoo adequately conveyed the risk of harm to typical users.
Dr. Laux focused on the following areas:
-
Design and Visibility: Assessing whether the warning labels were sufficiently prominent, legible, and easy to find on the product packaging.
-
Language Clarity: Determining if the language used was understandable to the average consumer and if it effectively communicated the possibility of serious skin conditions.
-
Risk Identification: Reviewing whether the product warned about risks specifically associated with PPD, including rare but serious reactions like vitiligo.
-
Compliance with Industry Standards: Comparing the labeling practices with industry norms and principles from regulatory bodies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Dr. Laux concluded that the Control GX labeling was inadequate because it did not warn users about the possibility of long-term or permanent skin depigmentation and did not make clear the severity of possible allergic reactions.
Court Proceedings and Findings
Combe filed a motion to exclude Dr. Laux’s testimony under the Daubert standard, arguing that her conclusions were speculative and not based on a scientific methodology. They contended that she had not inspected the actual product packaging and had relied instead on photographs, and further argued that she had not compared the Control GX product to similar items in the marketplace.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas denied Combe’s motion, ruling that Dr. Laux’s expert opinion met the requirements for reliability and relevance. The court emphasized that she used a structured, three-step framework for evaluating warnings, based on her background in human factors engineering and product safety communication.
The court also found that her reliance on photographs was acceptable, as they clearly depicted the labeling in question. Any challenges to her lack of market comparison or on-the-ground product inspection were deemed issues for cross-examination rather than exclusion.
Legal Significance
This case reinforces the value of Labels & Warnings Expert Witnesses in product liability litigation. The court’s decision shows that expert testimony grounded in professional experience and logical methodology—particularly in the field of consumer communication—can be admissible even without laboratory testing or direct product sampling.
It also affirms that courts are willing to hear from experts who can explain how and why consumers may misunderstand or overlook critical product warnings, especially when those warnings involve serious health consequences.
Conclusion
Moore v. Combe Incorporated exemplifies how a Labels & Warnings Expert Witness can help establish the adequacy—or inadequacy—of a product’s labeling in a failure-to-warn lawsuit. Through structured analysis and expert interpretation of communication standards, Dr. Laux’s testimony gave the court and jury tools to evaluate whether the product packaging failed to meet its legal obligations to inform and protect consumers.