This is a guest post from John Vaughan https://www.hklaw.com/en/professionals/v/vaughan-john-thomas, a partner at Holland & Knight who has been in-house at both pharma and tech companies, which gives him some extra insights into the decision discussed below. As with all guest posts, the author gets all the credit and blame for the content of the post
Today’s case is not a drug or device case, but its holding is helpful to our clients who face state law nuisance claims arising from the acts of third parties.Continue Reading Court Shuts Down Expansion of New York Nuisance Law
This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
Our latest Zantac litigation decision is not from the Florida MDL, but rather a standalone case in Maryland − Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 2022 WL 537004 (Md. Cir. Jan. 28, 2022). It’s a split decision, and depending on which
Great decision from the Paraquat MDL recently, rejecting public nuisance claims in the product liability context. In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, 2022 WL 451898 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2022), involved what, in the herbicide context, is the equivalent of a prescription drug. That product “is not available for purchase by the public or
Perhaps you recall how President Trump campaigned on behalf of “Big Luther” Strange in Alabama. Strange had been appointed by Alabama’s Governor to fill the Alabama United States Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions when Sessions became U.S Attorney General. Trump supported Strange’s effort to win election to the seat in his own right for
A couple of quick hits today, on once “novel” causes of action whose time – at least in the novel legal spaces to which plaintiffs attempted to export them – appears to have passed.
The first of these is the shopworn effort, popular back in the late 1990s but more or less petered out by now, to use the ill-defined concept of public nuisance as a club to attack the products of an entire industry, and not incidentally, to try an end run around product specific causation. We’ve blogged on it before, criticizing public nuisance claims against products on various grounds.
Us? The Drug And Device Law Blog? Who listens to us?
Not too many people, unfortunately.
But a lot of people – most importantly, judges – listen to the American Law Institute. Bexis has joined the Members’ Consultative Group for the ALI’s Third Restatement of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm, and that group met recently. Preliminary Draft #2, circulated last month, has this to say about attempts to use “public nuisance” to encroach upon the law of product liability:
g. Products.
Tort suits seeking to recover for public nuisance have occasionally been brought against the makers of products that have caused harm, such as tobacco, firearms, and lead paint. These cases vary in the theory of damages on which they seek recovery, but often involve claims for economic losses the plaintiffs have suffered on account of the defendant’s activities: the costs of removing lead paint, for example, or of providing health care to those injured by smoking cigarettes. Liability on such theories has been rejected by most courts, and is excluded by this Section, because the common law of public nuisance is an inapt vehicle for addressing the conduct at issue. . . . If those [existing] bodies of law provide do not supply adequate remedies or deterrence, the best response is to address the problems at issue through legislation that can account for all the affected interests.
As noted in Comment g [sic, we think this should be “b”], problems caused by dangerous products might have seemed to be matters for the law of public nuisance only because the term “public nuisance” has sometimes been defined in broad language that appears to encompass anything injurious to public health. The traditional office of the tort, however, has been narrower than those formulations suggest, and contemporary case law has made clear that its reach remains more modest. The rules of this Section reflect that modesty.Continue Reading Bad Ideas Whose Time Has Passed
The Supreme Court decided the climate change case, American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, No. 10–174, slip op. (U.S. June 20, 2011), and the class action case, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10–277, slip op. (U.S. June 20, 2011), yesterday. We can’t hope to compete with the deluge of general comment on
We’ve posted about one of the big certiorari grants from yesterday – Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes – so today, we’re taking a look at the other one – American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, aka the “global warming” case. Here’s the link to the SCOTUSblog collection of case resources. Just as with Dukes,
The two of us have been practicing law now for a little over 25 years. Bexis graduated law school in 1982 and Herrmann a year later (see our bios – links at the top – for the gory details). At big firms it takes a few years – five at least – before we could
Roughly a year ago, we published a post about the trial court decision in Independence County v. Pfizer. There, the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed claims brought by several Arkansas counties against companies that manufactured over-the-counter cold and cough medicines containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. The counties sought to hold the drug companies liable because the