by KPMLAW | Jun 14, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Updates
Author: Lee Hoyle, Esq. Editor: Brian Cafritz, Esq. Although the UCC offers some consistency between states, Products liability lawsuits, in general, are creatures of state law. 50 states means 50 potentially different tort laws. Each state can take its own approach to issues – from whether to adopt strict liability to the standard of admissibility for expert testimony to admissibility of other complaints about the product – and decide differently. Therein lies the problem. The potential disparity between outcomes from one state to the next can cause nightmares for anyone attempting to evaluate risks associated with selling products across the country. Fortunately (at least for products liability defendants), in some cases, Federal law may dictate a single, consistent answer: no products liability on a theory inconsistent with Federal law. Even where states have answered a question one way, Federal law may have something else to say. Federal law is the supreme law of the land, so any conflicting state law cannot be enforced. Such conflicts rarely arise in tort law, because there are few federal laws addressing torts. There are some industries that receive claims preemption as to certain claims due to extensive federal regulation of the industry as a whole. For example, drug manufacturers could not be sued for failure to warn when their labels complied with FDA requirements in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), while an automaker could not be held liable for failing to include airbags when such a requirement conflicted with the Department of Transportation’s regulations in Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). One interesting (and still developing)...
