PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Law Reporter, Nov 2004

ATLA's Products Liability Law Reporter includes a broad range of products liability cases. Here are examples of the kinds of cases appearing in each issue of PLLR.

Insufficient roof strength on SUV

Verdict, including punitive damages, for a woman who suffered paraplegia when the 1997 Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle (SUV) she was driving rolled over and the roof's B-pillar deformed inward, introducing slack into her seat belt and allowing her to move toward and contact the collapsing roof. She and her husband sued the manufacturer of the SUV, alleging a defective design made it prone to roll over. Plaintiffs also alleged that the SUV was not crashworthy because of a defectively designed roof structure. Plaintiffs were represented by *Dennis A. Schoville and *Louis G. Arnell, both of San Diego, Cal.

Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., Cal., San Diego County Super. Ct., No. GIC 800836, June 3, 2004.

Defendants must show compliance with EDA regulations to use Vaccine Act's presumption of proper warnings

A U.S. district court held that defendants in a case alleging a vaccine-related injury were not entitled to rely on the statutory presumption of proper warnings to doctors under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq., because they had not produced evidence of compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. Plaintiffs were represented by Peter Andersen Moir, *C. Andrew Waters, and Tanja Karin Martini, all of Dallas, Tex. Documents in this case are available through the Court Documents section in the back of this issue, courtesy of Mr. Waters.

Blackmon v. American Home Prods. Corp., ___ F. Supp. 2d _____, No. CIV.A. G-02-179, 2004 WL 1752958 (S.D. Tex. July 9, 2004).

Defective polybutylene piping in mobile home

Settlement for a man and his daughter who suffered respiratory infections and related health problems after the polybutylene piping in their mobile home leaked, causing mold to form. They sued the company that manufactured the home, alleging strict liability for including defective polybutylene piping in the home. Plaintiffs also sued the company that manufactured the resin used in the piping, alleging it was defective, causing the piping to degrade and leak. Suit against an environmental services firm that had inspected for leaks and created a corrective plan alleged the firm had failed to identify all of the leaks. Suit against the repair firm that carried out the plan alleged the repairs had been negligently performed. Plaintiffs in this case were represented by *Bruce M. Brusavich, Torrance, Cal.

Doe v. Roe, Cal., Los Angeles County Super. Ct., confidential docket no., Apr. 27, 2004.

Court erred in admitting defense expert's testimony where substance not disclosed during discovery

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky held that a trial court erred in permitting a defense expert to testify as to his medical opinions regarding plaintiff's physical condition where the defense failed to make those opinions available to plaintiffs during discovery. Plaintiffs were represented by * Kenneth L. Sales and *Joseph D. Satterley, both of Louisville, Ky. Documents in this case are available through the Court Documents section in the back of this issue, courtesy of plaintiffs' counsel.

Clephas v. Garlock, Inc., __ S.W.3d __, No. 2003-CA001276-MR, 2004 WL 1699794 (Ky. Ct. App. July 30, 2004).

Kentucky high court adopts learned intermediary doctrine

The Kentucky Supreme Court adopted the learned intermediary doctrine as set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Torts. The court noted that the main rationale for the rule-which provides that a prescription drug manufacturer's duty to warn runs to the prescribing physician-is that the prescribing physician is in the best position to provide warnings and can offer an independent medical decision as to whether a drug is appropriate for a given patient. The court also noted that 34 states have adopted the doctrine by common law decision.

Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., __ S.W.Sd __, No. 2002-SC0746-CL, 2004 WL 1361954 (Ky. June 17, 2004).

Unreasonably dangerous skin lightener product

Settlement for a woman who suffered a burn on her forehead, resulting in a scar, after she applied a skin lightener product to her face. She sued the manufacturer and distributor of the product, alleging, among other claims, that it was defective and unreasonably dangerous and that defendants had failed to register the product as a drug with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and obtain FDA approval through proper testing. Plaintiff was represented by *Stanley E. Karon, Edina, Minn.; and *Todd Jay Kenyon, Minnetonka, Minn.

Doe v. Roe Corp., U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Minn., confidential docket no., June 22, 2004.