Defect

Subscribe to Defect

In Ebert v. C.R. Bard, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that Pennsylvania state law is unclear on two issues of medical device liability, and sent the issues to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for review.

In Ebert, a G2 clot filter made by Bard was placed into the plaintiff’s inferior vena cava. Although the filter was set to be removed after three years, it could not be removed because one of its struts broke, grew into the vein wall and was caught in the plaintiff’s pulmonary artery. Thus, the plaintiff was forced to undergo a procedure to remove the filter. The plaintiff then brought suit, alleging negligent design and strict liability.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Sends Questions Regarding Medical Device Liability to Pennsylvania Supreme Court for Review

In a product liability case where a manufacturer is defending a claim that a product it designed was defective and the cause of a plaintiff’s injury, the manufacturer may attempt to introduce evidence at trial showing its product was manufactured in accordance with applicable industry standards.  Proof that the product was designed in accordance with industry standards, in some instances, can establish that the product was built with the latest technological advancements being used by other manufacturers in the marketplace. …
Continue Reading Despite Tincher, Pennsylvania Superior Court Determines “Industry Standards” Is Still Not a Viable Defense to Product Liability Claims

cars-on-fire137810326TSA recent decision handed down by the Connecticut Supreme Court may significantly impact the way product liability lawsuits are litigated within the state of Connecticut in the future. In a products liability case, the “malfunction doctrine” permits the plaintiff to argue at trial that a product possessed a defect without offering direct evidence of a defect, but rather only circumstantial evidence of the alleged defect. Under the malfunction doctrine a plaintiff is permitted to argue that a product  was defective due to an unexpected event that would not have occurred if the product functioned properly without the necessity of specifying the part or component that was actually defective. A common use of the malfunctions doctrine is in product liability cases arising out of a fire. In a fire case, a plaintiff will typically argue that all causes for the fire have been ruled out except for a malfunction within the product despite no direct evidence of a specific defect.
Continue Reading The Connecticut Supreme Court restricts the plaintiff’s ability to rely on the “Malfunction Doctrine” to support a Product Liability claim