As reported here early earlier, Guidant has a problem with some of its defibrillators and has know about it for over three years. Now, it appears that it disclosed at least a part of what it knew to the FDA in February but the FDA did not act until June.
The New York Times just got the report under a FOIA request – a request orginally rejected by the FDA.
Read more here. For my other posts on this subject click here and here.
I know some of you may be sick of reading about the Texas Vioxx trial, but this piece – a Q & A with Mark Lanier with questions posted by readers – is different and very interesting. Note the resources Lanier poured into this trial.
Well, round two starts on Monday in New Jersey. This case appears stronger on causation that the Texas case, but now Merck has a good idea about what will be coming. Then again, so do the plaintiff’s lawyers.
Here is a nice summary of the case.
The NYT has reported that Ford has recalled almost 4,000,000 trucks and SUVs, saying that a problem with the cruise control could cause the vehicle to catch fire. There have been almost 1200 reports of fire to date. Ford had earlier recalled almost 800,000 for a simliar concern.
The model years at issue are 1994 – 2002.
According to the Times, “Ford said it believed that brake fluid may leak from the switch that deactivates the cruise control once the driver steps on the brake pedal. That fluid can drip down to the cruise control’s electrical component, cause corrosion and ignite a fire, the company said.”
What does the industry say about how a product should be manufactured? Look to this site as a resource for product safety research.
The site also has links to information about problems with medical devices, product recalls, and patent data.
Thanks to Bob Kraft for bringing this site to my attention.
Can a product that is not completely installed be a product? The 3-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court said “yes.”
Sprinkler systems were being contructed in a three huge warehouses for documents storage. Although the sprinkler system was “admittedly incomplete,” the sprinkler system was issuing “material and test certificates” for those portions of the buildings were the documents were actually being stored. Hence, the Court said, the sprinkler system was a “product” and strict liability law was applicable.
Read an article about the case here.
Here is a great article about Mark Lanier and his recent victory in the Vioxx trial in Texas.
State Court New Jersey September 12
State Court Houston October (exact date unknown)
Federal Court New Orleans Nov. 28,
Federal Court New Orleans, Feb. 13, 2006
Federal Court New Orleans, March 13, 2006
Federal Court New Orleans, April 10, 2006
By the way, according to this article in the New York Times, Merck has shifted its strategy and now said that it may settle some of the claims against it.
The 11th Circuit has reversed a jury verdict in favor of Toyota in a seat belt case, holding that the judge should have instructed the jury on the consumer expectation test. The judge only instructed on the risk-utility test. The judge was applying Florida law and the 11th Circuit ruled that, under Florida law, a seatbelt is a product about which a ordinary consumer could form expectations.
Read the opinion here. As you do remember that Tennessee also has a consumer expectation test in products cases.
The Illinois Court of Appeals remanded a wrongful death case for trial on behalf of a child who died in a fire started by a lighter that lacked child-resistent features. Name of the lighter: “Aim ‘n Flame.”
The court found that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the risks of the lighter as manufactured outweighed the benefits of it, making it defective. The court affirmed dismissal of the negligence and failure to warn claims.
Read the opinion here
Day on Torts