Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Product Liability Law & StrategyLJN NewslettersNewsSections

The Ever Shifting Landscape in Prescription Drug Design Defect Litigation

By Andrew K. Solow, Evan Anziska and Daniel Meyers
May 02, 2014

Aside from preemption, it is quite possible that no legal doctrine has caused more angst to both sides of the pharmaceutical product liability bar, and in turn, the courts, than the interplay of negligence versus strict liability and the viability of a design defect claim against manufacturers of FDA-approved prescription drugs. At the heart of this debate is “comment k” of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a provision written almost 50 years ago by the American Law Institute (ALI). See Restatement (Second) of Torts ' 402A, comment k (1965).

In the past year, two much-anticipated decisions, one from the U.S. Supreme Court and one from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, stand at opposite ends of the spectrum on the viability of design defect claims against manufacturers of prescription drugs. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013), holding that state law design defect claims against generic manufacturers of prescription drugs are preempted under federal law. This past January, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Lance v. Wyeth, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 205 (Pa. Jan. 21, 2014), holding that design defect claims grounded in negligence can proceed against manufacturers of prescription drugs, side-stepping 20-year-old precedent barring strict liability design defect claims under Pennsylvania law.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.