You will be provided with a reference and some statements. Please determine whether each statement is 'supported', 'unsupported', or 'unknown' with respect to the reference. Please note:
First, assess whether the reference contains any valid content. If the reference contains no valid information, such as a 'page not found' message, then all statements should be considered 'unknown'.
If the reference is valid, for a given statement: if the facts or data it contains can be found entirely or partially within the reference, it is considered 'supported' (data accepts rounding); if all facts and data in the statement cannot be found in the reference, it is considered 'unsupported'.

You should return the result in a JSON list format, where each item in the list contains the statement's index and the judgment result, for example:
[
    {
        "idx": 1,
        "result": "supported"
    },
    {
        "idx": 2,
        "result": "unsupported"
    }
]

Below are the reference and statements:
<reference>
Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com
Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | customerservice@law360.com

Top Product Liability Cases Of 2023: Midyear Review
By Emily Field
Law360 (July 11, 2023, 2:36 PM EDT) -- A recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion that expanded states'
jurisdiction over out-of-state companies, billions of dollars in settlements over so-called "forever"
chemicals, and a verdict over Tesla's autopilot technology are among the top product liability cases so
far in 2023.
Here is Law360's list of product liability highlights for the first half of the year.
High Court Widens General Personal Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court in late June disappointed the defense bar by allowing companies to be sued in states
where they have only registered to do business in reviving a suit brought by a Virginian against
the Norfolk Southern Railway in Pennsylvania, even though his alleged injuries happened in other
places.
Robert Mallory had sued his former employer, Norfolk Southern, over alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals on the job in Virginia and Ohio. However, he wanted the case to be pursued in Pennsylvania
on the grounds that the railroad had registered to do business in the state and that gave its courts
jurisdiction over the dispute.
In late 2021, the state's high court tossed the case and struck down Pennsylvania's so-called long-arm
statute, which gave its courts jurisdiction over any out-of-state corporation that had registered there.
The court held that such statutes violated a defendant's due process rights. The U.S. Supreme Court
agreed to hear the case in April 2022.
Even though the underlying case didn't involve product liability claims, the 5-4 ruling was significant,
because it broadened general personal jurisdiction, which the high court last addressed in
2014's Daimler AG v. Bauman and 2011's Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations SA v. Brown. Those rulings
said that corporate defendants are subject to general jurisdiction in a state if their affiliations with the
state are substantial enough to render them "essentially at home in the forum state."
Here, the majority held that its 1917 decision in Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining &
Milling Co. allowed states to have "registration by consent" laws, where an out-of-state company can be
subjected to that state's jurisdiction despite how much business the company actually carries out there.
While decisions like Daimler, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court and Ford Motor Co. v. Montana

Eighth Judicial District over the past 10 years have clarified personal jurisdiction, the Mallory decision
creates uncertainty for companies, according to Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown LLP, adding that there
will inevitably be increased personal jurisdiction litigation.
"But exactly how significant the decision will be is quite unclear, because defendants retain several
powerful arguments against Mallory-type general jurisdiction," Pincus said. "To begin with, how many
states will interpret their laws to require consent to general personal jurisdiction as a condition to doing
business? Even prior to Mallory, for example, New York's highest court held that New York's foreign
business registration law does not require such consent."
The case is Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., case number 21-1168, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
3M and Others Ink PFAS Deals
The largest settlement over drinking water in U.S. history at $12.5 billion was announced in June by 3M
and the plaintiffs' attorneys representing public water systems across the country who alleged
contamination from so-called "forever chemicals" leached from firefighting foam.
Litigation over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS chemicals, has rapidly grown over the past
several years. Nicknamed for their tendency to persist in the environment and the human body, the
chemicals are useful for their water-resistant properties and are found in a broad range of products
from nonstick pans to food packaging, but have been shown to lead to health problems and possibly
cancer.
The first bellwether trial in the litigation had been paused several weeks earlier, when the federal judge
overseeing the litigation had been informed that a deal was in the works.
Just before 3M announced its deal, chemical companies DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva reached
a settlement worth more than $1.1 billion with water companies across the country in the South
Carolina MDL.
"There have been a number of these settlements that have sort of accelerated in pace," Eric Larson
of Morris Manning & Martin LLP said. "The companies that are involved in this litigation have identified
now as an opportunity to dispense with a number of these lawsuits."
The multidistrict litigation is In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, case
number 2:18-mn-02873, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
Bankruptcy Strategies in MDL Tested
In early June, an Indiana federal judge tossed the bankruptcy case of a 3M subsidiary that the
manufacturer had filed to address more than 230,000 claims over allegedly faulty combat earplugs,
finding that the bankruptcy didn't serve a valid purpose for reorganization.
Since Aearo Technologies is financially healthy, with what's effectively unlimited backing from 3M, on
top of the fact that neither company faces looming financial challenges, Aearo doesn't have a real need
for Chapter 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jeffrey J. Graham said.
While potential damages in the litigation over faulty Combat Arms Earplugs v2, or CAEv2 could run into

the trillions, as counsel in the MDL have argued, that's just a lawyer's guess, the judge said. Meanwhile,
it's too early to tell whether Aearo or 3M is at risk of liquidation, the judge said.
For one, bellwether verdicts from the MDL are being appealed, and it is unknown whether the
companies will ultimately face any liability under a government contractor defense, because the
earplugs were sold to the military, Judge Graham said.
3M had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for Aearo and six related companies in July 2022, hoping to spin
off liability for claims of hearing loss and medical issues related to CAEv2, as well as thousands of claims
over allegedly faulty respirators. 3M had proposed a $1 billion trust to pay out on those claims.
Claimants had told the bankruptcy court that the Aearo case should be dismissed, because it hadn't
been filed in good faith. Rather, it had gained a tactical advantage in underlying multidistrict litigation,
after jurors had awarded nearly $300 million in damages in 13 bellwether trials.
They also argued that Aearo's bid for bankruptcy protection had relied heavily on no longer valid
bankruptcy court rulings that had allowed a Texas Two-Step by Johnson & Johnson, spinning off its talcrelated liabilities, stemming from cancers linked to baby powder, into the newly created LTL
Management LLC.
However, the Third Circuit ruled in January that LTL Management's bankruptcy was filed in bad faith,
because the company was not in financial distress and had substantial backing from J&J for costs
associated with talc liability. Since then, J&J has filed for another Chapter 11, this time with a proposed
$8.9 billion settlement that the company believes a majority of claimants will sign on to.
"I think that the J&J bankruptcy ruling obviously played a role in the 3M Aearo ruling," Tonya Newman
of Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP said. "At the beginning of the year … it occurred to me that if you start to
see really big MDLs like [3M], then you may have some creative use of the bankruptcy code as a way of
trying to shield the company's liability. It seems to me that these two decisions may have put that to
rest."
The 3M case is In re: Aearo Technologies LLC et al., case number 1:22-bk-02890, in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The MDL is In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability
Litigation, case number 3:19-md-02885, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The
J&J case is In re: LTL Management LLC, case number 3:23-bk-12825, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Jersey.
Tesla Scores Win in Calif. Trial
In April, one of the first cases over Tesla's autopilot function to go to trial resulted in a verdict for the
tech company when a California jury cleared it of wrongdoing in a suit alleging that the systems in a
2016 Model S malfunctioned and caused injuries in a crash.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury in Glendale, California, found that the autopilot and airbag
systems on plaintiff Justine Hsu's car did not fail and that Tesla Inc. did not make a false statement of
fact to Hsu. Additionally, the jury found that Tesla did not intentionally fail to disclose a fact that Hsu did
not know and could not have reasonably discovered.
Hsu alleged in her 2020 complaint that she chose to lease the Model S because of Tesla's marketing that

its vehicles were the safest cars on the market and that the autopilot eliminates the risk that the driver
will be injured. But on July 19, 2019, during stop-and-go traffic while driving at about 25 to 30 miles per
hour, the Tesla abruptly veered into the center median on a street in Arcadia, California, Hsu alleged.
The airbags deployed, breaking her jaw and causing multiple injuries to her face, hands and feet, Hsu
claimed.
Before trial, Tesla argued that drivers are told not to rely on the autopilot feature and not to use it on
urban streets or on roads where conditions are constantly changing. The electric automotive
manufacturer also argued that drivers are also told to stay alert at all times.
There was also evidence that Hsu had her hands off the steering wheel for almost 90 seconds while she
was looking at something in her hand at the time of the crash, said Michael Carey of Dykema Gossett
PLLC, which represented Tesla at trial.
"We still should continue to hold drivers responsible for the operations of their vehicles, even when they
use it [advanced driver-assistance] technologies," Carey said. "That was the primary theme for our trial."
The case is Justine Hsu v. Tesla Inc. et al., case number 20STCV18473, in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.
--Editing by Nicole Bleier.

All Content © 2003-2023, Portfolio Media, Inc.
</reference>

<statements>
1. Courts must apportion liability across two competing fault axes: the driver’s duty of care under common-law negligence, and the manufacturer’s product liability under design defect, marketing defect, and manufacturing defect theories
2. At common law, the operator of a motor vehicle owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing injury to other roadway users and vehicle passengers
3. This duty requires maintaining an alert visual lookout, traveling at speeds appropriate for road conditions, yielding right-of-way, and taking reasonable evasive action when hazards appear
4. In civil ADAS litigation, automotive manufacturers use this common-law framework to construct a defense based on sole proximate cause and intervening, superseding causation
5. The defense argues that because the owner’s manual, visual disclaimers, and user software agreements specify that Level 2 automation requires continuous human supervision, any collision resulting from automated misclassification or control loss stems directly from the driver’s failure to maintain a visual lookout
6. This legal strategy leverages the concept of the reasonable person, treating the human driver as an independent supervisory agent whose failure to intervene breaks the chain of proximate causation between an alleged software failure and the plaintiff's injuries
7. Fine-print warnings buried within complex digital user manuals asserting that "the driver must maintain control at all times" cannot serve as an absolute liability shield
8. Automotive OEMs rely on terms-of-use agreements, infotainment system startup clicks, and extensive user-manual caveats requiring drivers to confirm their supervisory obligations before enabling ADAS features
9. While an OEM cannot enforce these provisions as express liability releases against an injured third party or vehicle passenger, disclaimers serve an important evidentiary purpose in defense litigation
10. Defense counsel introduces signed terms of use and manual warnings to establish the driver's subjective awareness of system limitations
11. This evidence helps OEMs argue comparative fault, establish assumption of the risk, or defeat reliance elements in fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims by showing that the operator knowingly operated the system outside its documented design parameters
12. Trial courts have delivered mixed outcomes in ADAS product liability claims, with juror verdicts often turning on whether the plaintiff's actions violated basic operating instructions
13. Justine Hsu v. Tesla, Inc. (2023) was a case in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County involving Tesla Autopilot in a 2016 Model S
14. In Justine Hsu v. Tesla, Inc. (2023), the alleged defect and legal causes of action included strict products liability, failure to warn, and fraud; the vehicle veered into a street median at 25–30 mph, deploying airbags and fracturing the plaintiff's jaw
15. In Justine Hsu v. Tesla, Inc. (2023), the OEM defense strategy was operator misuse, use of the highway feature on urban surface streets, and driver inattention
16. In Justine Hsu v. Tesla, Inc. (2023), the evidentiary determinants and disposition included a defense verdict, with the jury finding that the system performed as designed, warnings were adequate, and telematics confirmed the driver's hands were off the wheel for approximately 90 seconds while looking away
17. These civil proceedings show that defense verdicts in Hsu and Lee were supported by clear telemetric proof of driver error, such as long periods of hands-off driving, distraction, or intoxication
18. Violations should incur administrative civil penalties and create a statutory presumption of consumer reliance in civil failure-to-warn and fraud claims
</statements>

Begin the assessment now. Output only the JSON list, without any conversational text or explanations.