You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘preemption’ category.

Recall that the Pinto’s design met all government standards of the time. Had compliance with federal standards been a complete defense of vehicle safety, Ford could not have been held accountable for the many burn victims that the company was later shown to have anticipated.

So why are medical devices different? Why is it that the politically controlled FDA’s approval and standards preempt the medical device industry from accountability? Should the Supreme Court take this argument to drug companies or any type of company that is regulated by the government such as the auto industry? How would you feel if your sixteen year old son were killed in a Ford Pinto? What would you do if you were not able to sue Ford to discover what happened, to discover what Ford knew and hid?

How Our Cars Got Safer

Advertisements

I believe many electrical devices are UL approved in the same manner devices are approved by the FDA. Yet, Medtronic believes it should not be sued because of a faulty medical device approved by the politically controlled FDA as the Supreme Court ruled in Reigel v. Medtronic. Are their two standards here? I suppose, as Senator Hatch said of trial lawyers, some creative corporate lawyer will find some sort of neat logic to defend these two opposing legal arguments. If we allow this to happen would we not be imposing “fifty” different requirements on Petco. How do these frivolous lawsuits ever make it to court? Is “stuff” more important then a human being.

“’The defendant negligently failed to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable warnings of defects and hazards which it knew or should have known were present in the aquarium heater described herein, which negligence was a direct and proximate cause of the fire and damages,, the suit claims.

Medtronic contends that because the heater was defective, Petco should be liable for the damage that resulted from the fire.”

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2188586/

You get into your car and place your child in the back seat and wrap the seatbelt around your child. You wrap the seatbelt around you child in case you are involved in an accident. Unfortunately you are in an accident and in that moment in time the seatbelt fails, throwing your child through the window and killing him. This seat belt was required by Federal Law and had to meet minimum design standards.

You later discovered that this seat belt had a recall because of a 4% failure rate. You also learn that this seat belt had an earlier recall with a smaller subset of that model of seat belts.

Unfortunately you can not sue because of a Supreme Court ruling for pre-emption protecting the automobile industry from lawsuits. The Supreme Court argued that allowing fifty states to sue would be imposing fifty different requirements on the auto industry.

Sorry you are out of luck.

“Ex-Toyota lawyer says documents prove company hid damaging information”

What if you had lost your infant in a Toyota. If you were in California or Texas there is a cap of $250,000 on pain and suffering.

Who is looking out for you? California has a cap of pain and suffering of $250,000. Is this the reason even after this happened to seven infants at one hospital no action was taken.

So if one of the 24,000 late-model vehicles you purchased had a high failure rate and caused the death of your son what would you do? What would you do if you were not able to sue because the Department of Transportation approved the vehicle for sale?

And if you have one of these vehicles would you call to determine if your vehicle was part of the recall. Maybe my son would have been better off if Chrysler had manufactured his pacemaker.

Chrysler Group is recalling about 24,000 late-model Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep vehicles to fix a defective part that could cause sudden, unexpected brake failure.

Owners of these vehicles can contact NHTSA’s vehicle safety hotline at 888-327-4236 or Chrysler at 800-853-1403

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/18/autos/chrysler_recall/