torts 2 deck 8 pltf's conduct and federal preemption Flashcards
design defect case, what standard applies?
strict liability
How does plaintiff’s conduct affect analysis?
plaintiffs conduct can be compared
Plaintiff’s negligence/Defendant’s design defect
Plaintiff’s recovery will be reduced
only to the extent that his own lack of reasonable care
contributed to his injury.
Plaintiff’s assumption of risk may be complete bar, if plaintiff’s conduct causes all of his harm.
Foreseeable misuse
If misuse is foreseeable, or “readily expected,” manufacturer cannot escape liability.
LeBouef v. Goodyear Tire (5th cir. 1980), note 2, p. 771
Speeding (while intoxicated) in a Mercury Cougar
Capable of going 100 miles an hour
With tires for speeds of 85 miles an hour
Apportionment of Responsibility under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 17 (a), note 3, p. 772
A plaintiff’s recovery of damages for harm caused by a product defect may be reduced if
the conduct of the plaintiff combines with the product defect to cause the harm and
plaintiff’s conduct fails to conform to generally applicable rules establishing appropriate standards of care.
Applies the jurisdiction’s comparative fault rules
Federal Preemption, p. 773
The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, §2, United States Constitution
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ..”
Any federal statute or regulation shall take precedence over an inconsistent state law.
Federal Law
Auto manufacturers had to equip some but not all of their 1987 vehicles with passive restraints.
Plaintiff claimed his car should have had an air bag.
Defendant claimed it complied with federal law.
Preemption
Does the statute pre-empt the lawsuit?
To decide, have to ask three questions:
Does lawsuit conflict with the statute’s express preemption provisions?
Do ordinary preemption principles apply?
Is there an actual conflict with the federal law?
Express Provisions
“Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect,
no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment,
any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.”
The Savings Clause
“Compliance with” a federal safety standard “does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.”
Lawsuit may proceed, at least under the express provisions of the statute.
Ordinary Preemption Principles
A state law cannot conflict with the federal objective.
The question is:
Does the common law “no airbag” design defect claim actually conflict with the federal law?
How Does a Court Decide?
Legislative history
Agency’s explanation
Statute’s requirements
The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act.
“No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act.”
Duty to warn claims against manufacturers are preempted.
But remember: design defect, express warranty, and fraud claims may still be brought.
Is the tort claim preempted?
Two “cornerstone” principles:
1. The purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every preemption case.
2. In all preemption cases, and particularly in those in which Congress has legislated in a field which the States have traditionally occupied,
we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the federal act unless that was “the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”
could manufacturer have issued a stronger warning?
The statute permitted Wyeth to unilaterally strengthen its warning.
The fact that the FDA already approved the drug’s label does not establish that it would have prevented such a change.
