The application of the strict liability principle to prescription drugs in failure-to-warn cases has spawned divergent case law

Article Abstract:

Comment K of Section 402A in the Restatement (2d) of Torts suggests the exemption of prescription drugs from the rule of strict liability, stating that it is unavoidable such drugs are unsafe. Judicial rulings on Comment K have differed, with some courts wanting proof that the drug's utility outweighs its risk, some refusing to adopt Comment K and some suggesting that the comment's application depends on the type of defect. Cases discussed in some detail include the Washington one of Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the California case of Carlin v. Superior Court.

Drugs, Failure to warn (Law)

---

As congressional tort reform stalls, appellate courts address the certification of nationwide classes in products liability lawsuits

Article Abstract:

Federal appellate courts are considering the merits of increasingly popular class action suits and, in some cases, decertifying the classes of plaintiffs involved. They are doing so prior to the class-action trial because they recognize how the form of the litigation affects the risks the defendant faces. Also, balancing efficiency concerns are the need for fairness and individual justice. State laws of negligence and product liability vary, and federal courts cannot legitimately negate these sovereign decisions judicially.

Class actions (Civil procedure), Class action lawsuits

---

Consumer expectations or risk-benefit analysis: which test is appropriate for determining liability in design defect cases?

Article Abstract:

The California Supreme Court limited the use of the consumer expectations test to show design defect in products liability cases in the 1994 decision of Soule v. General Motors Corp. The court held that the consumer expectations test was inappropriate for cases on complex products where ordinary consumers have a limited knowledge of what to expect. The court also stated that expert evidence was not admissible in cases where the consumer expectations test was appropriate.

Foreseeability (Law)

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: ECJ to rule on nondeductibility of write downs on shares in nonresident companies
• Abstracts: Salvation outside the church: judicial protection in the Third Pillar after the pupino and segi judgments. Interim measures in community courts: recent trends
• Abstracts: The EPA and some state legislatures weigh strengthening the self-critical analysis privilege so as to promote candor in audits
• Abstracts: Implant plaintiffs reach into a deep pocket; Texas lawsuits are the first to include related company Dow Chemical as a defendant
• Abstracts: Full stop for fraud suits in states? Needed or not, bill likely to pre-empt state class actions. The arbitration question: why no punitive awards? The high court hears arguments over whether a federal act pre-empts a N.Y. statute limiting arbitrators' powers

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.