April 30, 2008

Injury Lawsuits from Dangerous Products a Thing of the Past?

In our last blog we discussed efforts by federal agencies to protect product makers from injury lawsuits for selling dangerous products to consumers. This blog includes specific examples of federal agencies seeking to protect corporations from injury lawsuits under state law, including the laws of Florida.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has instituted rules on seat belts, roof-crush resistance and rear-object detection systems - and pre-empts state tort law in the preambles to those rules.

When the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced new flammability standards for mattresses the commission made a last-minute addition to the rule that pre-empts state tort law, the first such move in the commission's 33-year history.

The Food and Drug Administration pre-empts state tort law in coming out with new rules that require drug manufacturers to warn patients when they become aware of new drug risks.
While not involving dangerous products, in the field of railroad safety, the Federal Railroad Administration issued a rule that effectively grants immunity from state lawsuits to railroad companies in the event of a commuter train derailment. Amazingly, this occurred a few days after Congress approved a measure that preserved the right of victims to sue railroad companies in such instances.

Why should these giant companies be able to put innocent consumers at risk and then be protected from the consequences of their reckless behavior? As Orlando injury lawyers, we do not believe they should.

April 21, 2008

Injury from Dangerous Products

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.

These federal agencies assert that their rules override state product liability laws and prevent innocent consumers from holding careless product makers accountable for putting profits over people. Most of these claims are rooted in statements in the introductions or preamble to federal agency rules. This has become a silent form of tort reform since the federal agencies not Congress creates these changes in the law. There is little if any checks and balances on what these agencies put in the preamble to their rules.

This has outraged consumer groups and legislators who find this tactic patently unfair. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said at hearings last fall that agencies have issued at least a dozen rules to shield drug and other product manufacturers from liability.

Of course, as an Orlando injury lawyer we know that the threat of civil litigation gives corporations a powerful incentive to make their products safer. We will take a further look at this important issue in future blogs. The public has a right to know that its federal agencies are choosing to protect corporate interests to the detriment of innocent consumers.