With new grass on the field, the 2019 baseball season is underway and optimism springs eternal. Here in Philadelphia, the Phillies have actually around the top of the NL east for the first time since, umm…., last year actually. But this year, having added possibly the best player and best catcher in the league,
A product is not defective simply because someone was harmed by it. That seems a simple enough point. Courts often acknowledge it, though sometimes in a perfunctory, mumbling fashion. What gives teeth to the mumbling is when state law requires the plaintiff to show a safer alternative product. If really pressed, many plaintiffs cannot articulate
Child: “Can I have ice cream before dinner?”
Parent: “No”
Child: “What if it’s strawberry ice cream?”
Parent: “Still, no”
Child: “What if my teacher told me I had to eat ice cream for homework?”
Parent: “Still, no”
Child: “What if a monster ran in here right now and said I had to eat ice
That is the intriguing title of the latest law review article written by the “Rabbi of Torts,” Prof. Aaron Twerski (we’re not making this up, Prof. Twerski’s Wikipedia page is the fifth result when we just Googled that phrase). Prof. Twerski, one of the ALI’s reporters for the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, has
Back in May, 3M won the first MDL bellwether trial in In re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warning Devices Prods. Liab. Litig. (D. Minn.). The case was Gareis v. 3M Company and at the time of trial, the only claim remaining in the case was for strict liability design defect under South Carolina law. 2018
This isn’t the first time we’ve written about the Hyde case in the Bard IVC Filters MDL. Back in July we reported on some pretrial rulings in that bellwether case. Get ready for more. The decision on tap for today, Hyde v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2018 WL 4215028 (D. Arizona Sept. 4, 2018), is
Today’s case has a little bit of everything – choice of law, statutory compliance, alternative design, warnings causation. So, the decision is a bit of “grab bag” in addition to being a “mixed bag.”
The case is Hyde v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2018 WL 3586404 (D. Ariz. Jul. 26, 2018). To begin with, plaintiff
You’ll have to excuse us a bit today. This post is about product liability – specifically Pennsylvania product liability. However, it is not really focused on prescription medical products. But what can we say? We were provoked.
**********
“The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.”
This post comes only from the Cozen O’Connor side of the blog.
The MDL court in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy (“TRT”) litigation recently entered summary judgment in favor of a non-US manufacturer that did not distribute in the US, along with its US subsidiary. The judgment ended efforts to hold those two defendants, Besins
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Today is a follow-up post on Bell v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms, No. 17-1153, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90337 (W.D. PA. May 31, 2018). When we last blogged about this case back in February, the court had tossed out everything except negligence and fraud/misrepresentation