Circulation Desk: 843-377-1119
Reference Desk: 843-377-4020
Or, stop by Sol Blatt, Jr. Law Library. We have an Open Door policy and are here to help!
A large section of torts litigation is products liability related. It can be frightening to ponder about how common injuries from product defects occur or how severely they might injure the user. For example, in 1997, the estimate for toy-related injuries was roughly 141,300. In 2001, the number increased to an amount exceeding 255,100. Sometimes a product might be recalled due to a defect. In 2003, almost 30,000 electric blankets were recalled as the overheating caused the products to burn consumers. However, it is not just toys and household amenities that have the potential to harm consumers. Automobiles, medicine, food, and nearly anything from store shelves is regulated by consumer-protection groups and governmental agencies. More importantly, litigation around injuries from these products can stem from a variety of sources. Perhaps a warning was inadequate to inform a consumer, a mishap occurred in the manufacturing process, or the product was defectively designed. This litigation can be split into three claims: design defect, warning defect, and manufacturing defect.
In 1994, McDonalds gained worldwide infamy when a jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages after she suffered third-degree burns on her pelvic region from spilling McDonalds' coffee. Liebeck v. McDonald's Rests., P.T.S., Inc., 1995 WL 360309 (D.N.M. 1994).
This lawsuit concerned the safety of Ford's Pinto automobile. The jury awarded plaintiffs $2,841,000 in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages. The judge then reduced the jury's punitive damages award to $3.5 million. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,119 Cal. App. 3d 757, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348 (1981).
This case is well known amongst 1L students due to res ipsa loquitor, a doctrine which states that a court may infer negligence on the tortfeasor based on certain circumstances. In this case, Gladys Escola, a waitress, was injured when a Coca-Cola bottle exploded in her hand. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944)
Betty Bullock, a 64-year-old woman with inoperable lung cancer, sued the tobacco company for negligence, strict product liability, and fraud. The jury awarded Bullock $28 billion in punitive damages; however, on appeal, the award was reduced to $28 million. Bullock v. Philip Morris, 138 Cal.App.4th 1029, 42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices
Prescription drugs and medical devices litigation are dominated by warning claims. These products are an outlier in the products liability field as they are subject to heavy regulation by the Food and Drink Administration (FDA). According to the Court in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., the FDA spends an average of 1,200 hours reviewing each application for a new medical device or drug. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008). This regulatory scheme has various levels of oversight ranging from class I devices to class III devices. Class I devices require the lowest oversight, being products such as bandages and gloves, and class III require the most, being objects such as pacemakers and heart valves. Being subject to heavy regulation, federal preemption is often an issue when these pharmaceutical companies face litigation.
Food and Drink
Throughout the jurisdictions, several tests have been implemented to conclude whether a food or drink manufacturer should be liable for any defect(s) in its product(s). One test is the "foreign-natural" doctrine, which provides that the consumer may recover if the substance in the food that caused the injury is a foreign substance but may not recover if the substance is natural to the food. Another test is the "reasonable expectations test," which focuses on what a consumer would reasonably expect to be in the product. For easily-visible "defects," courts will apply a "plain view doctrine." An example of this doctrine is exhibited in Harris Teeter, Inc. v. Burroughs, where the plaintiff had consumed an ornament on a cake that was the same color as the frosting. Harris-Teeter, Inc. v. Burroughs, 399 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1991).
