Segal McCambridge Legal Blog

In an unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Breyer, SCOTUS reversed a decision of the California Court of Appeal, holding that state tort suits alleging that car manufacturers should have installed lap-and-shoulder belts, rather than simply lap belts, on rear inner seats were not preempted by federal auto safety standards.

From the opinion:

The question presented here is whether this federal regulation preempts a state tort suit that, if successful,would deny manufacturers a choice of belts for rear inner seats by imposing tort liability upon those who choose to install a simple lap belt. We conclude that providing manufacturers with this seatbelt choice is not a significant objective of the federal regulation. Consequently, the regulation does not preempt the state tort suit.

Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, while Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Kagan recused herself.

Here is the Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States (”SCOTUS”) has issued an opinion in Brusewitz v. Wyeth LLC, holding that a 1986 federal law setting up a program to compensate for injuries due to administration of vaccines preempts all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers by individuals seeking compensation for injury or death.

The opinion was written by Justice Scalia in a 6-2 decision which affirmed the Third Circuit. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor dissents joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Kagan took no part.

Here is the SCOTUS opinion in Brusewitz v. Wyeth LLC

Here is a New York Times article on the decision

On January 21, 2011, in the case of Jodi McGookin, et al. v. Guidant Corporation, et al. the Indiana Court of Appeals held:

After their newborn daughter was diagnosed with a heart defect, was given a Guidant pacemaker, and tragically passed away at the age of fourteen months, the appellants filed a state law complaint against Guidant. Among other things, they argue that Guidant should have put specific warnings on the pacemaker labeling related to its implantation into pediatric patients. Because the label had been preapproved by the Food and Drug Administration, however, and Guidant was not required to include the additional warnings, the trial court held that any state law-based failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law. Finding that the trial court properly found the claims preempted, we affirm.

This decision is in keeping with two recurring themes in preemption cases involving medical devices: 1) that Riegel provides the preemption rules governing Class III medical devices; and 2) that “may� does not mean “must� when determining what constitutes a federal requirement under the MDA’s express-preemption clause.

The opinion can be found here

On September 9th, the Third Circuit issued an opinion which a district court grant of summary judgment to defendants Viad Corporation and Railroad Friction Product Corporation, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were all preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701, et seq. (“LIA�).

Plaintiff’s counsel at oral argument was Robert E. Paul.

A copy of the Third Circuit opinion is here