Here’s a pop quiz. You’re a nurse. You’ve just used an insulin pen on Patient A. Do you: (a) use the same pen on Patient B or (b) grab Patient B’s own pen? If you picked (a), please put down the syringe, because you have apparently never heard of a little thing called the germ
The saga over the illegality defense in Kansas appears to have run its course, and as in previous chapters, the defense has prevailed. The Tenth Circuit has ruled that the defense of illegality exists under Kansas law and that it applies to product liability claims. As we reported here and here, this is the
This is from the non-Dechert and non-Reed Smith side of the Blog.
We are not bankruptcy lawyers. So, even though we are discussing a Supreme Court decision on the powers of a bankruptcy court, we are not purporting to be experts in that area. The decision, of course, is Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
A few years ago, we detailed the efforts of the plaintiffs’ bar to tweak the Restatement of Torts to decrease the chance that a suit for damages would be defeated because the plaintiff engaged in a criminal act. The Restatement (Second) from 1979 called this the Wrongful Acts Doctrine, but the concept has a long
We don’t have much patience for litigation attempting to seek damages for drug addicts who injured or killed themselves through their illegal use of drugs. We’ve discussed several times how such plaintiffs (or their estates) should lose under the in pari delicto doctrine that prevents criminals from recovering damages for the consequences of their own criminal acts. Lots of cases so hold. See, e.g., Albert v. Sheeley’s Drug Store, Inc., 265 A.3d 442, 448 (Pa. 2021); Price v. Perdue Pharma Co., 920 So.2d 479, 486 (Miss. 2006); Orzel v. Scott Drug Co., 537 N.W.2d 208, 213 (Mich. 1995); Patten v. Raddatz, 895 P.2d 633, 637-38 (Mont. 1995); Lastrina v. Bettauer, 289 A.3d 1222, 1234 (Conn. App. 2023); Gentile v. Malenick, 112 N.Y.S.3d 364, 365 (N.Y.A.D. 2019); Kaminer v. Eckerd Corp., 966 So.2d 452, 454 (Fla. App. 2007); Pappas v. Clark, 494 N.W.2d 245, 247 (Iowa App. 1992); Inge v. McClelland, 725 F. Appx. 634, 638 (10th Cir. 2018) (applying New Mexico law); Romero v. United States, 658 F. Appx. 376, 380 (10th Cir. 2016) (applying New Mexico law); Messerli v. AW Distributing, Inc., 2023 WL 4295365, at *5 (D. Kan. June 30, 2023), certif. denied, 2023 WL 6961977 (D. Kan. Oct. 20, 2023); Alston v. Caraco Pharmaceutical, Inc., 670 F. Supp.2d 279, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Sorrentino v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 397 F. Supp.2d 418, 422-23 (W.D.N.Y. 2005), aff’d, 218 Fed. Appx. 7 (2d Cir. 2007); Foister v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 295 F. Supp.2d 693, 705 (E.D. Ky. 2003).
Continue Reading Another Opioid Addict Overdose Case Dismissed, Several Times Over
We write today with an update on a case applying the defense of illegality (or “in pari delicto”) to cut off product liability claims under Kansas law. Messerli v. AW Distributing, Inc. is the sad case of someone who passed away, allegedly as a result of inhaling intoxicating fumes (or “huffing”) from computer
We don’t see the defense of illegality much in the product liability space, but when a plaintiff’s claims arises from his or her own illegal behavior, the illegality defense can be a powerful tool. We mention this now because a district court in Kansas recently applied the illegality defense to dismiss a case based on
Santa dropped off an early Christmas present. It was not crafted by elves. It was drafted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (five of its seven members, anyway), and it is so good that it is a last minute addition to our Ten Best list, which will arrive anon.
In Albert v. Sheeley’s Drug Store, Inc.
Bexis has been an active member of the American Law Institute (“ALI”), particularly concerning the ALI’s ongoing projects involving the Third Restatement of Torts. Thus, regular blog subscribers have read about his adventures attempting to dissuade the law professors who draft these projects from pursuing their natural biases towards always increasing liability (more liability =
Not too long ago we criticized a proposed “restatement” from the American Law Institute that sought to absolve plaintiffs who acted intentionally from having their conduct (such as stealing drugs, deliberately taking someone else’s prescription), count as comparative fault in the lawsuits such plaintiffs frequently file against our clients. That particular proposal has been withdrawn