Liability suits

In 1998 President Clinton signed legislation intended to protect biomaterials manufacturers from frivolous liability suits. The Act protects from lawsuits the makers... 

Faced with a protracted struggle in the political arena, some gun control activists launched a new offensive in the late 1990s by filing liability suits against gun manufacturers. Suing the shooter is a possibility, of course, but most criminals have little in the way of recoverable assets. 

A trade group for firearms dealers. The association has been engaged in trying to counteract liability suits being filed against gun makers by cities. 

In 1983, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. voluntarily removed Bendectin from the market because of the many product liability suits pending. However, subsequent in-depth analysis of epidemiological and scientific data indicated that the therapeutic use of Bendectin had no measurable teratogenic effects. Nevertheless, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, a number of jury decisions were rendered against the company (providing an argument for tort reform). 

In the legal arena, patients who commit violence may be able to use akathisia as an exculpatory or mitigating factor. In cases of suicide and violence, product liability suits may be brought against drug manufacturers who fail to warn that their products cause akathisia and that akathisia is associated with potentially disastrous consequences. The existence of akathisia in the absence of external movements can be a critical diagnostic issue. 

In the meantime, in 2001, Houston, Texas, attorney Andy Vickery won a product liability suit against GlaxoSmithKline in a Paxil murder-suicide suit (Tobin v. SmithKline Beecham, 2001). Donald Schell, age 60, had taken two doses of Paxil before shooting his wife, their daughter, and his granddaughter to death. The jury awarded 6.4 million to two surviving family members (Josefson, 2001). 

An unpublished document obtained during discovery in product liability suits against the drug company disclosed that Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of fluoxetine (Prozac), had evaluated the comparative rates of suicide attempts on fluoxetine, amitriptyline, and placebo (the documents are available from http //www.breggin.com). The data were generated during controlled clinical trials conducted for the FDA approval process for Prozac for depression. On the basis of the company s data for controlled clinical trials, patients taking fluoxetine were 12 times more... 

About 20 books later now, and a few dozen scientific studies and innumerable product liability suits where I ve looked at sealed data,... 

The focus is on Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Prozac, and on GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Paxil. I cannot say with certainty that these companies are any more negligent than others they are simply the companies I have learned the most about as a result of my independent research and my work as a medical expert in product liability suits against them. 

On June 15, 2005, in a multicase product liability suit, Eli Lilly settled for 690 million. Most of the case involved life-threatening diabetes caused by Zyprexa. I was hired as a medical expert by Hersh and Hersh, a California law firm involved in that multisuit, multistate legal action, and had the opportunity to evaluate sometimes lethal cases of diabetes and pancreatitis caused by Zyprexa. Some cases became chronic other patients died within hours of onset. My Web site (http //www.breggin.com) contains more details on the Eli Lilly settlement. Meanwhile, similar cases have continued to be brought with potential payouts, or settlements, by the company estimated at 1.2 billion (Rosack, 2007). 

Because inventors and their employers may become involved as defendants in product liability suits, university patent licensors will generally demand indemnification from a corporate licensee against any claim or suit for injuries or property damage arising from use or sale of the licensed product or process. 

Judicial decisions in nonregulatory contexts such as toxic tort and product liability suits are likewise inconsistent in their consideration of the linear, no threshold model. As in the regulatory context, most cases find no problem with an expert s reliance on a risk assessment using the linear model. In a handful of cases, however, the court rejects reliance on a linear dose-response assumption. Eor example, one court in addressing the cancer risks from a low concentration of benzene in Perrier held that there is no scientific evidence that the linear no-safe threshold analysis is an acceptable scientific technique used by experts in determining causation in an individual instance (Sutera 1997). Another court decision concluded that [t]he linear non-threshold model cannot be falsified, nor can it be validated. To the extent that it has been subjected to peer review and publication, it has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. It has no known or potential rate of error. It is merely an hypothesis (Whiting 1995). The inconsistency and unpredictability of judicial review of risk assessments adds an additional element of uncertainty into the risk assessment process. 

The number of product liability suits is increasing. The prudent manufacturer will initiate an ongoing preventative program to assure that he adequately fulfills his duty to warn. 

The definition of supplier has been broadened and now includes retail traders who may be subject to the secondary liability of the supplier. Where several persons are liable for the same damage, the injured person should be able to claim full compensation for the damage from any one of them. A major increase in the liability of the so-called quasi producers is now possible. These companies, which do not traditionally produce products but only select or distribute products manufactured by others, may be drawn into liability suits and/or corrective measure actions. These quasi producers include, but are not limited to, importers, suppliers, distributors, mail order houses, supermarkets, and department stores. The costs of litigation per defective product will be multiplied because of increasing complexity and multidefendant litigation will also rise. 

The procedures for a liability suit involve three main steps complaint, discovery, and trial. Variations from this simplified model will occur in particular cases. Within each step other activities may occur and the entire process can end at any point. An additional step may involve pre-trial negotiations. Parties try to settle the case without a trial. 

Today, the Monsanto fiber, a compound known as calcium sodium metaphosphate, is a cause celebre. Vice President Dan Quayle called it the quintessential example of why new Federal laws are needed to limit awards in product liability suits. His comments were made in an article he wrote in the March issue of Product Safety Liability Reporter, a regulatory newsletter. 

Between 1970 and 1980, one phrase caught the attention of the manufactures and suppliers more than any other phrase product liability. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that the number of product liability suits increased 983% from 1974 to 1988. In 1991 it was reported by insurance industry that 1.6 billion was paid out in product liability losses. They also reported that an additional 1.1 billion was spent on legal costs (1). The cost of liability insurance has increased substantially in the last five years. Virtually every industry has been plagued with liability suits and the plastics industry is certainly no exception. 

Obviously, there is no single answer to all of these questions. The following is a general guideline everyone should foUow to steer clear of unwarranted product liability suits. 

---