Lawsuit Defective Drugs News: FDA Patient Safety: March 2008

Posted on April 1, 2008

The March 2008 edition of FDA Patient Safety News contains the following topics:

- First Drug to Treat PKU Approved
- Recall of Heparin and Saline Flush Syringes
- Severe Pain with Osteoporosis Drugs
- Warning on Exjade and Liver Failure
- Dangerous Skin Reactions from Carbamazepine
- Potentially Fatal Hyponatremia from Desmopressin
- Alaris (Medley) Infusion Pumps Recalled
- Preventing Burns from Electric Dental Handpieces
- MedWatch: Reporting Adverse Events

Do you need a defective product lawyer?

Ford Motor Company no longer produces a car that explodes and bursts into a ball of flames when struck from behind. Work places have fewer guard-less punch presses and other machines capable of maiming and disfiguring. Life-threatening birth control and other medical devices have been removed from the market and the industry exercises more caution before introducing new devices. Asbestos is no longer used as an insulator, infants' toys are safer and, in general, manufacturers are simply producing safer products

Of course there have been federal and state agencies and regulations that have been trying to face the problem of defective products; however the best effort has been products liability lawsuits. In a products liability lawsuit, consumers have the right to enforce the laws on manufacturers for the safety of their products. If manufactures create a product that is unreasonably dangerous, they subject themselves to serious liability.

Products liability lawsuits include negligence theories, strict liability theories and breach of warranty theories.

A negligence theory requires the plaintiff to prove four elements. First it must be shown that the defendant owed a duty to the consumer. Manufacturers do in fact, owe a duty to the users of its products and to bystanders likely to be injured. The manufacturer also has a duty in making its product, to guard against injuries likely to result from reasonably foreseeable misuse of the product. The plaintiff must also show that the manufacturer breached its duty. In showing breach, the reasonable manufacturer standard applies. This means, would the reasonable manufacturer, with knowledge or constructive knowledge of the product's defect, have produced the product. If "no", then the manufacturer has breached its duty. Of course, the plaintiff need also prove he or she was injured and that the defendant's breach caused the injury.

Strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff need not show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer's part. The plaintiff must show only that the product was sold or distributed by a defendant, and that the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant's hands in order to prove liability on the part of such defendant. The behavior or knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of a products liability defendant regarding the dangerous nature of a product is not an issue for consideration under a strict liability theory. Strict liability concerns only the condition of the product itself. In contrast, a negligence theory concerns not only the product, but also the manufacturer's knowledge and conduct.

The final products liability theory is that of breach of warranty. Every product comes with an implied warranty that it is safe for its intended use. A defective product that causes injury was not safe for its intended use and thus can constitute a breach of warranty. Further, a seller or manufacturer cannot simply disclaim such a warranty but will be held responsible if its product is deemed defective.

Here is a list of some of the most common defective products cases: angerous Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Unsafe Foods, Children/Safety products, Brain Injuries/Trauma

If you or someone you love has been hurt or injured by a defective product, please contact our service today. We can help get you in touch with experienced legal professionals who can help you with your claim.