3M, Aearo Combat Arms Earplug Defects Class Action (with Short-Form Complaint)

This case with short-form complaint seeks to join already existent cases in a multi-district litigation, In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, which was filed on September 20, 2019. The larger litigation includes multiple cases filed in different courts about 3M Combat Arms earplugs, against 3M Company, 3M Occupational Safety, LLC, Aearo Holding, LLC, Aearo Intermediate, LLC, Aearo, LLC, and Aearo Technologies, LLC.

This case will be absorbed into the multi-district litigation through this filing of a short-form complaint, from plaintiff Bernita M. Pennick, who also used the Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplug, against defendant 3M Company.

Earlier cases on the same topic allege that the earplugs were designed to protect soldiers’ hearing in combat conditions. The earplugs had two ends and could be inserted in two different ways, the complaint alleges. In the closed position, with the green end inserted, they were meant to keep out all sounds. In the open position, with the yellow end inserted, they were meant to reduce loud noise but still allow soldiers to hear sound that might be important to their activities, such as voice commands or the footsteps of enemies.

Unfortunately, the complaints allege that the stems of the earplugs were too short and that the earplugs could therefore loosen in the ears while they were being worn, without the wearer being aware of it. With the seal loosened this way, the complaints allege, loud sounds or “impulse noise” could enter the ear around the earplug and damage the soldiers’ hearing. The open end of the product might actually have amplified sound, at least one complaint alleges.

The complaints allege that 3M knew about the problems through its testing processes before it began selling the earplugs to the military. At least one complaint cites an earlier lawsuit filed by another maker of earplugs, claiming that 3M made false statements about the earplugs in question; 3M agreed to pay more than $9 to resolve these claims.

The problems alleged by Pinnick with her hearing now, as a result of the use of the earplugs, include hearing loss, sequelae to hearing loss, and tinnitus.

The causes of action for the short-form complaint include design defect—negligence and strict liability, failure to warn—negligence and strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraud and deceit, gross negligence, negligence per se, consumer fraud or unfair trade practices, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Defective Product, Earplugs, Failure to Warn, Fraudulent Concealment, Negligence