‘Silent tort reform’ on product liability decried

NEW ORLEANS (AP)— If you think the prescription drug you took for headaches caused your heart attack, the Food and Drug Administration says you can’t sue the maker for injury if it met agency standards.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says you can’t sue a mattress maker if your mattress bursts into flame despite meeting CPSC standards. Companies making sport utility vehicles would get similar protection from suits brought by people injured or the families of those killed in rollovers under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposals for stronger roofs.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys call it “silent tort reform.” But it’s part of the tension that’s existed since the nation’s founding: conflict between state and federal law.

If they clash, state laws give way. That’s in Article 6 of the Constitution. But in areas where there is no federal law, federal courts must defer to laws of the state where a lawsuit is heard. That includes product liability.

A developing body of judicial opinion could place new limits on the rights of those who buy or use products, consumer advocates say. It also could mean the savings of billions of dollars by companies insulated from lawsuits.

What’s riling plaintiffs’ lawyers, consumer groups and some regulators is agencies’ assertions their rules override state product-liability laws. Most such claims are rooted in statements in the introductions to their rules, not the rules themselves.

“These pre-emption preambles may be only the beginning,” New York University law professor Catherine Sharkey wrote in the DePaul Law Review.

She projected preambles might “displace competing or conflicting state regulations or common law as a matter of course.”

The practice varies by agency but is spreading. “It’s absolutely a trend,” said Deepak Gupta, staff lawyer for Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen Litigation Group.

It also delights corporate defense lawyers.

“Pre-emption is an extraordinarily powerful defense,” Mark Herrmann and James Beck wrote in their Drug and Device Law blog.

The argument is that federal agencies are the rule-makers. Period. “As long as the expert FDA weighs the risks and benefits, lay juries shouldn’t be second-guessing it,” Mr. Herrmann said.

One example of what this means to the average person is found in NHTSA proposals for new SUV-rollover rules.

Attorneys general from 26 states asked the organization in 2005 to drop lawsuit protection from the rules, which could go into effect as early as July 1.

“State governments and the federal government will have to cover millions of dollars in health care costs, which they will pass along to taxpayers — costs that, by all rights, should be the responsibility of manufacturers,” the attorneys general wrote.

Story Continues →