In most states, someone who suffers personal injury, aggravated illness, or death caused by dangerous drugs can sue the manufacturer of those drugs. It seems reasonable that a drug manufacturer would be liable for dangerous products just like any other manufacturer who causes injury to the public.
However, Michigan lawmakers haven’t seen it that way. Instead, a Michigan law enacted in 1996 protects drug manufacturers from civil liability to their victims if the drug in question had FDA approval. That statute came under scrutiny after Michigan residents harmed or killed by the drug Vioxx were barred from filing suit against Merck last year. Now, Michigan lawmakers are considering revising the statute to narrow the protections and allow Michigan residents more ability to seek compensation for drug-related injuries.

The Bronx Summary Trial Court decided six civil cases during its first week of operation, in significant contrast to typical civil court where one trial can last for several day or even weeks.
Under the new system, New York personal injury cases are tried in just a few hours. Opening statements are limited to ten minutes for each side, and each attorney has one hour to present evidence and may call no more than two witnesses.

Proponents of the system say it will save tens of thousands of dollars for parties in attorney fees, trial preparation, expert witness fees, and more. In addition, cases will come to trial much more quickly.
Currently, the Summary Trial Court hears only cases wherein both parties have agreed to the process. Its decisions are binding and not subject to appeal.

The South Carolina Appellate Law Blog is reporting that an Oregon lawyer is seeking to establish a common law tort claim that would allow pet owners to recover for loss of companionship when their pets were killed. The current case involves an animal that had to be put to sleep after a neighbor allegedly intentionally ran it over, but the attorney has made it clear that the issue is larger than this case, and that if he doesn’t prevail in establishing the claim here, he will raise it again.

Michigan’s chief Insurance Regulator stepped in last week to prohibit insurance companies from inserting a clause in their contracts that would limit an insured’s ability to make underinsured motorist claims under their own vehicle insurance policies. Earlier this year, Michigan took similar steps regarding uninsured motorist coverage.

Some insurance companies had sought to include a contract provision requiring such claims to be filed with the insurance company within six months of the accident. Michigan has now precluded any limitation that would reduce the period for filing below the three year statute of limitations in tort cases.
Not all states have taken action to prevent against this kind of contractual modification, though, so make sure that you understand the terms of your insurance policy clearly–and when you’re considering new coverage, ask the company how long you have to file uninsured/underinsured motorist claims.

A briefing paper by the Economic Policy Institute, relying heavily on data from the Congressional Budget Office, draws some interesting conclusions about the “costs” of litigation in the U.S.:

1. The reported “tort cost” is greatly exaggerated, because it takes into account the transfer of money from the injurer to the victim, which is not accurately classified as a cost to society;
2. The number of tort cases in the United States has declined over the past dozen years; and
3. There is no evidence that litigation influences the cost of health care. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that even a 30% drop in medical malpractice insurance premiums would only reduce the cost of health care by a fraction of one percent.

The full text of the report is available on the Economic Policy Institute’s website.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed tougher regulations on vehicle roof strength. At a glance, that looks like a great proposal, since thousands of people are killed in vehicle rollovers each year, often because the vehicle roof caves in on impact.

However, the aspect of the regulation that NHTSA is underplaying to the public is that it would pre-empt all state laws regarding vehicle roof strength. Thus, so long as a vehicle met the federal standards, an injury victim could not bring suit against the manufacturer even if it could be proven that roof strength deficiencies caused the injury. States would not be able to set standards higher than those included in the federal provisions, either by statute or case law.

The Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court precluded an important defense for cigarette makers facing personal injury claims from smokers.

While “improper use” is a defense in many product liability cases, the court ruled that because cigarettes could not be used safely for their intended purpose. As such, “there can be no non-unreasonable use of cigarettes.” This prevents cigarette manufacturers from arguing that plaintiffs are responsible for their own injuries because they used cigarettes in a harmful way.

Although the ruling has legal effect only in the state of Massachusetts, the precedent may impact tobacco litigation across the country.