The Marlboro Man meets the Orkin Man: the effect of Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. on federal preemption by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of failure to warn claims brought under state tort law

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court's decision in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, holding that state tort claims for failure to warn were preempted by the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (CLAA), should mean that similar state tort claims based on pesticides products liability are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Because of the differences between FIFRA and CLAA, however, state tort claims against pesticide manufacturers will not be preempted. FIFRA specifically allows for state regulation, including remedial, and provides no single labeling content requirement, which leaves compliance largely a matter between states and manufacturers.

Pesticides, Failure to warn (Law)

---

Following the Supreme Court's analysis in Cipollone, courts are finding broad preemption in sophisticated medical device tort litigation

Article Abstract:

The development of a broad federal statutory scheme for regulating medical devices has limited state tort claims but has also provided manufacturers with certainty and uniformity among states. The Medical Device Amendments identify the scope of the US Food and Drug Administration's authority to regulate sophisticated medical devices. The comprehensiveness of the statutes has lead to broad preemption. These products require the courts to perform careful balancing because many users are facing serious health situations.

Cigarettes, Cigarette Manufacturing

---

Preemption under the Medical Devices Amendment: a difficult pill to swallow?

Article Abstract:

Blanket preemption of medical device claims contradicts the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Cipollone case, hurts plaintiffs, and runs counter to public policy. The 1993 King decision protected medical device manufacturers by preempting claims under the Medical Devices Act (MDA), effectively holding state tort law preempted by FDA regulation. Despite the King holding, FDA regulation should be the minimum standard of product safety, allowing juries at the state level to rule on manufacturers' liability.

Cases

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The application of the strict liability principle to prescription drugs in failure-to-warn cases has spawned divergent case law
• Abstracts: The EPA is formulating a rule that will expand the types of 'credible evidence' that can prove Clean Air Act violations
• Abstracts: A McVeigh acquittal? Prosecutors face major evidentiary hurdles when trial starts Mar. 31. Withdrawal move difficult for Oklahoma City lawyer; he says he's 'a defense lawyer down to (his) toenails' but must beg off
• Abstracts: Jurors rise up over principle and their perks: before the revolt at the O.J. trial, panels had defied courts and the law

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.