Articles Posted in Products Liability

Public Citizen has challenged an attempt by Guidant Corporation to keep secret certain papers filed in litigation in Minnesota.

The Public Citizen press release says that "two subsidiaries of Guidant that produce and sell controversial cardiac rhythm management (CRM) devices sued the health care consulting company Aspen Health Care Metrics for publishing information about the prices of Guidant’s pacemakers. The briefs supporting and opposing summary judgment, and all supporting papers, were filed under seal without any documentation of need for secrecy. … ‘Under well-established law, the public has a presumptive right of access to judicial records, which may only be overcome by a showing of sufficiently important countervailing interests,’ the motion [which was filed to make the records public] reads. ‘Guidant has never made such a demonstration, and it does not appear that Guidant will be able to do so.’"

Recall that Guidant is also involved in personal injury and wrongful death claims concerning problems with its implantable pacemakers.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled (applying Minnesota law) that a product manufacturer who is following specs supplied by its customer can be liable for defective design in the evidence shows that the manufacturer particpated in the design of the product.

Of course, the general rule is that a manufacturer which follows the design of another is not liable for defective design unless the specifications are so obviously dangerous that they should not be followed.  Here, however, the plaintiff pointed to specific facts from which a jury could conclude that the defendant jointly designed the product.

The case is Thompson v. Hirano Tecseed Company, Ltd., No. 05-2813 (8th Cir. August 1, 2006).

Ford Motor Company has recalled 6,700,000 vehicles that have faulty cruise control systems that can cause the vehicle to catch fire.

Ford now agrees that "brake fluid might leak from the switch that deactivated the cruise control once the driver stepped on the brake. That fluid can drip onto the cruise control’s electrical component, cause corrosion and ignite a fire. "  Read more here.

This site will allow you to determine if your vehicle has been recalled simply by plugging in your vehicle identification number (VIN).  If your vehicle has already burned up your VIN number is on your vehicle registration.  If that burned up too your dealer or the governmental entity that licensed the vehicle can give you the number.

The jury in the first Vioxx trial in California has ruled in favor of Merck.  Read more here.

The first of several thousand Vioxx cases in California is nearly complete.  I will let you know when the verdict comes in.

Insurance Journal reports that a lawsuit has been filed against Bacardi, the manufacturer of 151 rum. 

The article says that "a bartender, who was not identified in the lawsuit, was pouring shots when a customer lit a menu on fire and placed it in the stream of alcohol. A bottle of Bacardi 151 that was being used to pour the shots turned into a flame thrower and sent flaming rum all over " the plaintiff.

I was involved in a similar case that went to trial in 1983.  Our client, an off-duty waitress in a restaurant in Alabama, was burned when a bottle of 151 rum exploded after a stream of the alcohol was exposed to flame.  The trial of that case resulted in the first million-dollar verdict in Nashville.

A jury in Texas has returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the first Duragesic pain patch case to go to trial.

Plaintiffs alleged that Michaelynn Thompson "died because the Duragesic patch released too much fentanyl, a strong pain reliever, into her body."

This article reports that there are 100 similar suits pending nationwide.

Breaking news: Merck won the most recent Vioxx case in New Jersey. The jury decided Merck failred to warn of the risk of heart attack associated with Vioxx, but that failure did not cause the plaintiff’s death.  The jury found no fraud or misrepresentation by Merck.  Commentary to follow, as John is on the road to Seattle.

Ok, so you spend millions of dollars on Congressional elections trying to avoid responsibility for making a product that a jury may determine is defective or unreasonably dangerous and you can’t get enough votes to make it happen.

What’s a Pharma to do?

Go through the back door, via regulation, with some help from your friends at the FDA. As of June 30 new regulations were placed in force to provide more concise and better organized patient information package insert sheets. In return for the huge inconvenience this places on drug manufacturers, the FDA included language that would exempt drug manufacturers from state product liability.

The Eastern Section of the Tennnessee Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff in a case involving the design of a seat back in a Ford Escort. The case is Potter v. Ford Motor Co., No. E2005-01578-COA-R3-CV; it was decided on June 21, 2006. The opinion was authored by Judge Sharon Lee.

Ford argued that “to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove ‘the availability of a technologically feasible and practical alternative design that would have reduced or prevented the plaintiff’s harm.” The Court disagreed, saying that no Tennessee state court had ever stated that Tennessee law placed that burden on a plaintiff. Judge Franks concurring, stating that while he agreed that what Ford said should be the law it was not the law of Tennessee.

[As I read the excerpts of the testimony of one of the plaintiff’s experts, the plaintiff introduced testimony that the plaintiff would not have been catastrophically injured if the Escort had been equipped with a belt integrated seat.]