Product Liability

Subscribe to Product Liability via RSS

Inflated jury verdicts in the first two preterm infant formula cases tried in the country have raised significant concerns for manufacturers and the broader medical community. These cases not only spotlight the legal challenges faced by manufacturers of highly specialized products, such as the formulas involved in these cases, but also underscore the potentially devastating effects on the availability and use of essential formula to provide preterm infants with adequate nutrition. In response to these bloated jury verdicts, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Benjamin Hoffman, M.D., issued a statement declaring that preterm infant formula “is a routine and necessary part of care of these preterm infants” and warning that “[c]ourtrooms are not the best place to determine clinical recommendations for the care of infants . . . we must take steps to protect the supply of infant formula for those who need it.”

Observers of filing trends in personal injury mesothelioma matters alleging exposure to talc contaminated with asbestos have noted that the bankruptcy filing of a predominant defendant in those matters did little to slow the pace of such filings. Instead, as the filing of new matters continued, the number of defendants named in such filings substantially increased.

The Third Circuit recently affirmed entry of summary judgment in favor of General Electric (“GE”) on grounds of derivative sovereign immunity. The Third Circuit found that GE was entitled to derivative sovereign immunity under current established doctrine in Yearsley and Boyle because all of GE’s work and equipment at issue was performed and/or designed pursuant…

Wooden gavel and American dollars
Record-breaking verdict

The number of cases involving so-called “nuclear verdicts” — that is, verdicts with awards of $10 million or more — have risen sharply, and many of those cases concern product liability claims. For large corporations, such verdicts can be damaging, both from a financial and reputational standpoint, but rarely do they significantly impact operations beyond the quarter or year in which they are booked. For middle-market and smaller corporations, however, product liability litigation can be enterprise-threatening; therefore, it is vital for smaller corporations — especially those with limited in-house legal resources — to understand the claims most often brought in product liability litigation, how to triage inbound lawsuits, and when to call on outside legal advice to resolve disputes.

AI Generating picture of a futuristic modern electric car speedometer dashboard interior view with a holographic wireframe digital technology background.

Vehicles are more complex now, than ever, offering incredible and exciting technology, including self-driving features. But as innovation continues to rapidly change the automotive industry, can we expect the same innovation to impact the legal landscape giving way to new and unique theories in product liability actions and/or impacting the defenses asserted by defendants? The short answer appears to be, “not yet.”

FDA

In April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released the results of its 2023 sampling assignment, testing for asbestos in talc-containing products. The results confirmed the absence of asbestos in all 50 samples tested, marking the third consecutive year of asbestos-free talc products in the United States. While this news is reassuring for industry participants, the legal landscape remains complex due to ongoing litigation. This article explores the legal implications, potential risks, and regulatory changes related to asbestos detection in cosmetic talc products.

This article is one of a series of posts diving into each aspect of The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) as the industry awaits MoCRA’s full implementation. This installment focuses on MoCRA’s approach to the regulation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetic products.
Philadelphia County has long been a preferred forum for plaintiffs’ bar in Pennsylvania. Until last week, a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(a)(1) was a tool at the disposal of any corporate defendant improperly entangled into Philadelphia County litigation. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Hangey v. Husqvarna, 14 EAP 2022 (Pa. Nov. 22, 2023, Dougherty, J.) may have effectively foreclosed improper venue dismissal except for those defendants who conduct no business in Philadelphia County whatsoever.
FDA3
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article, in a continuing series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA, covers the talc testing and sample preparation requirements which will be established by the FDA under MoCRA.