Articles Posted in Product Liability

by

Chicago’s 7th U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a federal district judge’s ruling that barred the Illinois product liability claim of Lenore Aebischer. In 1997 at age 44, Lenore underwent a hip replacement. But the prosthetic hip manufactured by defendant Stryker Corp. allegedly failed due to structural defects, and Lenore required a second replacement surgery as a result of the Illinois medical device liability.

Stryker Corp. moved to dismiss the complaint filed by Lenore because the 2-year statute of limitations had run when the case was filed in Chicago in 2005. In Illinois, typically the statute of limitations begins running from the date that the claimant should have known that there was a problem with the defective medical device. The Chicago district court found that in 2002 Lenore was aware that her hip problems were caused by a manufacturer’s defect.

In 2001, Lenore saw her orthopedic surgeon for left hip pain and was told that her hip replacement might last 15-20 years. In 2002, the same doctor determined that her pain was caused by osteolysis and from particles of plastic that had broken loose from the prosthetic hip. In 2003, the surgeon performed a second hip replacement surgery to replace the failed original prosthesis. After the surgery, the surgeon told Lenore that the osteolysis was worse than he had originally thought and that the original hip device had “advanced or catastrophic failure”.

Because of her surgeon’s discoveries during her procedure in January, 2002, the Illinois federal district court said that the plaintiff was on “inquiry notice” that her injury might have been wrongfully caused based on the surgeon’s explanation of the osteolysis and that particles of plastic from the prosthesis had gotten between that device and her hip bone.

Continue reading

by

The parents of 8-month-old Joshua Flax filed suit against DaimlerChrysler after their son was killed in a car accident involving their 1998 Dodge Caravan. The wrongful death case centered on the allegedly defective design of the minivan’s front seat backs. Jeremy Flax, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., et al.

Joshua Flax was in the back seat of the minivan when it was rear-ended. The impact caused the front seat to collapse and its passenger to strike Joshua in the head, fracturing his skull. No other passengers were seriously injured and all parties agreed that Joshua was only fatally injured because of the product liability of the collapsed seat.

In late 2004, a jury found DaimlerChrysler’s seats to be defective and unreasonably dangerous, awarding a total of $105,500,000 to Joshua’s parents. This amount was later reduced, but the verdict was upheld all the way through the Supreme Court.

Continue reading

by

Defendant Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth dealership in Cook County lucked out with an ideological “get out of trial free” card in a product liability case involving a car sold at his dealership. Murphy v. Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. 2008 WL 927727.

The Illinois Appellate Court’s clarification of section 2-261 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure makes it easier for non-manufacturers to be dismissed from strict product liability cases in Illinois. The relevant section states that

“A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer . . . where the plaintiff can show . . . That the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage”. 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c)(2).

So if plaintiff could prove that the defendant knew about the product defect then the defendant could not be dismissed from case. However, Murphy takes this interpretation a step further to determine whether it is enough that defendant just knows about the alleged defect or whether they need to know that the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous, too?
In Murphy, Plaintiff Joseph Murphy claimed that he was paralyzed in a rollover accident because his Sebring lacked a roll bar safety device. He alleged that Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth sold him a Sebring that was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a roll bar. Mancari confirmed that they knew that the vehicle did not have a roll bar, but still claimed that this did not make them directly responsible.

Continue reading

by

NASCAR driver Michael McDowell walked away from a violent rollover car crash during a race at the Texas Motor Speedway earlier this year. After skidding into a wall and flipping across the track several times he climbed out of his crashed vehicle unhurt. This complete lack of injury is unimaginable in your typical car, but NASCAR vehicles come equipped with roll bars to prevent roof crush in rollover crashes.

Unfortunately your typical street car doesn’t come equipped with as stringent safety standards as those enforced by NASCAR. Currently the roof crush standard in the United States requires that the roof must be able to withstand pressure of at least 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight. This is the same standard which was established in 1973 and has remained unchanged since its inception. In 2005 Congress proposed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) upgrade its standards in an effort to reduce injuries and fatalities from rollover crashes.

Recently NHTSA came to Congress with a proposal for increasing the weight ratio to 2.5. The minimal increase has drawn a lot of controversy with its opponents calling the increase ineffective. In 2007, over 10,000 people died in rollover crashes. In Illinois there were over 5,000 rollover accidents in just 2006. Yet the NHTSA estimates that its proposed increase would only result in 13 to 44 fewer rollover fatalities a year. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) stated, “If we have a little increase in roof strength that doesn’t result in a major decrease in injuries and fatalities, we’ve done nothing.”

And while the ratio change is minimal and drawn criticism as being ineffective there is another controversy surrounding the bill. Possibly worse yet the NHTSA proposal has a throw in; the agency inserted language which would preempt car accident victims from suing any manufacturer who met the minimum standard.

Continue reading

by

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) is lobbying for the rights of consumers injured by defective medical devices. In Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers of medical products weren’t liable for damages if their device received premarket FDA approval (see 03/01/08 post for more details). It is up to Congress to restore the rights of the consumer.

The Medical Device Safety Act of 2008 is set to mimic the 1976 Medical Device Act (MDA), which is what the U.S. Supreme Court relied on for its decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. The new act seeks to add the following language to the section titled “No Effect on Liability Under State Law”:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or otherwise effect any action for damages or the liability of any person under the law of any State.

By adding this language the new Act ensures that civil suits can be filed under state law even if the device was approved by the FDA.

In order to ensure that the new act protects the rights of consumers the AAJ is actively lobbying, uniting attorneys from across the country in their common goal. If you, too, feel strongly about this bill it is vital that you contact your member of Congress and voice your support for the bill.

Continue reading

by

In the case Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturer of the medical device could not be sued under state law when the device causes an injury. What this means for patients is that it is now harder to file an Illinois product liability lawsuit against a maker of medical device that is FDA approved.

FDA recall video of the leads used in Medtronics pacemakers.

In its decision the Supreme Court relied on the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) which holds that a state cannot establish regulations that are different than established by the FDA, or that are in addition to the federal requirements. Nor can state regulations supersede those laid out by the FDA regarding safety and effectiveness.

Continue reading