Product Liability

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has long been a cornerstone of protection for firearms manufacturers and sellers, shielding them from liability when their products are misused in crimes. But recent litigation, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc.,1 shows how litigants continue to test the boundaries of this federal law. While the ruling ultimately upheld the PLCAA’s protections, the case is a reminder of the ongoing scrutiny the law faces—and why it remains essential for the firearms industry.

“With great power comes great responsibility,” and in the rapidly evolving landscape of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), the intersection of innovation and legal responsibility is becoming increasingly complex. As AI becomes more integrated into products and services across industries, matters regarding liability, regulation, and safety are raising questions about the tension between AI and liability. Courts must apply existing legal frameworks to this emerging technology while lawmakers play catch up and enact guardrails to ensure its safe and lawful use. This article explores the implications of AI in the context of product liability, focusing on recent litigation and potential theories of liability that companies must navigate as AI continues to permeate every sector of the economy.

A jury in St. Louis, Missouri was recently asked to award over $6 billion in damages against baby formula manufacturers defendants in a lawsuit that alleged the defendants’ specialized infant formulas for premature babies caused the development of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a potentially fatal condition. NEC is a severe gastrointestinal condition that primarily affects premature babies, leading to inflammation and bacterial invasion of the intestine, which can cause significant health issues and lead to death. After three hours of deliberations, the jury found the defendants not liable for Plaintiffs’ product defect, failure to warn and negligence claims.

As the demand for clean energy and transportation grows, so does the need for rechargeable batteries. Lithium-ion batteries are widely used, from small toys to electric cars to large energy storage systems. While some lithium-ion batteries are already subject to regulations, rechargeable batteries used in “micro-mobility devices” such as electric bikes and scooters are currently not subject to any federal safety standards. Some advocates contend that a lack of regulation has led to an increase in fires caused by poor quality, defective batteries. According to a report by CBS News New York, defective lithium-ion batteries have allegedly resulted in 400 fires, 300 injuries, and 12 deaths between 2019 and 2023 in New York City alone.

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.”