Product Liability Lawsuits: Boehringer Ingelheim - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW SUITS Product Liability Lawsuits: Boehringer Ingelheim Insert Insert Grade Insert 10 June 2012 Introduction Product liability lawsuits make manufacturers of goods compensate consumers in case their goods and products become defective. This means that when unsafe products harm an individual, he may have a cause of action against the manufacturer, the person who designed it or the seller. In the United States, for instance, product liability suits are effective tools for consumer protection. The product liability law was amended from its original form such that it shifted from caveat emptor to strict liability for manufacturing defects, which make a product unreasonably dangerous. However, critics of product liability law suits have said that it enriches plaintiff’s attorneys and that it has added costs of sold goods. Businesses in this regard have sought the help of state legislatures and Congress in the hope that they can reduce damage awards that sometimes costs them millions of dollars (The Free dictionary, 2012). Prada drug manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, is facing a court case because it allegedly failed to warn consumers of side effects of drugs. This paper gives an analysis of product liability law suits in relation to this company. Theories of Liability Negligence In most scenarios, a plaintiff’s cause of action can be based on four unique theories; negligence, breach of warranty, strict tort liability and misrepresentation (Nolo, 2012). For the case of Prada drug manufacturer, negligence charges were that the plaintiff suffered serious injuries and death from unstoppable bleeding problems (Malik, 2012). Negligence in this regard can refer to the failure to exercise ordinary or proper care. It signifies that the person in possession of legal obligation, for this case, Boehringer Ingelheim omitted to do what was expected to have been done, or that he carried out an action that was not supposed to have been done. The manufacturer in this case was, therefore, held liable for negligence because he lacked reasonable care in the design and production of the goods that caused the harm. A clear example is that a company may be found to have been negligent if employees exposed a low level of work performance or if the management were responsible for the poor performance of work through implementing improper procedures that were responsible for unsafe products (Nolo, 2012). Breach of warranty This refers to the deliberate failure of the person selling a produce to discharge the terms of a covenant or representation made concerning the quality of the product. Boehringer Ingelheim failed to keep its covenant by producing a defective product; the reason it is facing law suits. Product liability laws normally assume that sellers should give specific warranties concerning the goods that they sell and they are, therefore, required to defend such promises. How far Boehringer Ingelheim will defend its product, will attract a lot of interest because deaths have already been confirmed. Misrepresentation This concerns the areas of promotion of sales through advertisements. This may involve the manufacturer or seller of products giving false security about the safety of a certain product. Such sellers can do this by moving attention away from the dangers of using the product. For the case of Boehringer Ingelheim, it only concentrated on treatment and refused to look at the side effects, signifying that it shifted attention from the dangers of using the drug. The plaintiff, in such an event, can prove that he relied on the misrepresentation that were made upon the product in buying it. Misrepresentation can, therefore, be urged using theories of strict tort liability and those of breach of express warranty. The former may include extending the responsibility of the seller or the manufacturer of the product to all persons who were affected by misrepresentation. In such a situation, all those who were near the damage that was caused by the poor product e.g. Guests, by standers etc can sue for damage. For the case of the Prada drug, each individual claim would be remanded back to the original federal court where it was filed for a trial date (Malik, 2012). History of Product Law Liability The history of this law can be equated to the history of the melt down of privity doctrine, which stipulates that an individual who is injured due to the negligent of another can sue only if he were part of the transaction with the injured person (Moore, 2001). This means that the duty of the defendant in reasonable care came from the contract, and one can only sue through the contract for any breach. This analysis signifies that if a manufacturer sells a product to a person who in turn sold it to another (the plaintiff in this case), he is protected from liability. However, the case of Boehringer Ingelheim is different because the firm is both the manufacturer and marketer of the drug; hence, it is not protected from liability. The plaintiff in this case is justified to be without remedy since it was actually the manufacturer and not the person who sold him the product whose irresponsibility caused the injury. This doctrine was more exposed during the nineteenth century, but most courts used to avoid denying an injured person a remedy. In some instances, privity was not a requirement in case the seller would conceal the defect, as in the situation of Boehringer Ingelheim, (i.e. failed to warn consumers of side effects) such exceptions begun to be widespread, with courts dropping the fraud requirement. This ensured that products such as those intended for human consumptions like coffee urn that would explode were considered imminently dangerous. A case in point is the case of Macpherson v. Buick motor co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916), which was hailed to have increased the category of those products that could be defined as imminently dangerous (Moore, 2001). This case ensured the abolishment of the privity requirement that appeared in negligence cases. The case argued that lack of privity cannot be a defense with foreseeable harm to a group of individuals, whom the plaintiff is part of. Since the above argument was seen as a test for negligence, the ruling favored the exception. The Macpherson case, therefore, became a significant authority and proceeding judgments ignored the privity rule in negligence cases. Further, there was an increase in public sympathy for those who had been neglected by industries, and this contributed immensely also to the cessation of the law. Warranty Privity limitations were also imposed on warranty. The reason that was advanced was that warranties were considered to be part of sales contracts. As early as the twentieth century, privacy law exceptions for cases that involved products intended for human consumptions had been developed (Moore, 2001). This meant that the warrant exception also covered the consumer. This situation is applicable to Boehringer Ingelheim because it deals with drugs, which can be categorized as a product for human consumption. Nevertheless, for cases that touched on implied warranty, an exception to the privacy law never extended to drinks, food and drugs, and this would have removed Boehringer Ingelheim from the picture. This was short-lived, until the coming of the case of Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960), in which the Supreme Court that was situated in New Jersey removed the privity limitation. The court ruled that implied warranties should extend up to the foreseeable user of the product (Moore, 2001). After this incidence, legal scholars analyzed the effect of creating strict liability in tort for defective products. This view gained wide acceptance with most individuals claiming that negligence is often too difficult to prove and that strict liabilities can be achieved using a series of actions for breach of warranty. Others justified this thinking by asserting that strict liability provided the safety incentives that were required. Others still put responsibility on the manufacturers by insisting that the manufacturer is always in the best position to stop injury, spread the cost of the risk or even insure. Those for such opinion further believe that the manufacturer can effect consumer reliance on the product expectation’s safety and that he should be made responsible for the product. Negligence The responsibility to guard against negligence through supplying products that are safe belongs to all individuals. This makes all the players in the chain of distribution to take responsibility, and they include the vendor, the manufacturer, and the company that uses the product to make a different product. All these persons have the responsibility to care for all those who meet the product. More care is even required on the side of all the above individuals in all spheres of getting the product to the ultimate consumer. For instance, the product is supposed to be tested in all stages of chain of distribution, in areas like the kind of material from which the product was made and whether the product was assembled in the correct manner. Warnings and direction of product use are also essential, and it is vital that these guidelines have to be adhered. Boehringer Ingelheim, thus, failed to adhere to this requirement because it failed to warn consumers of the side effects. Breach of warranty A person can be said to be in breach of warranty if he misrepresents facts. Breach of warranty appears in three categories, and this includes; implied warranty of merchantability, implied warranty of fitness for a given purpose and express warranty. In the case of the express warranty, the vendor of the goods can make an affirmation of facts to the purchaser, in relation to the said goods, and this becomes part of the bargain. This can be through spoken words during the negotiations, or can be put down in writing, through a sales contract. The final phase of such a warranty can only be concluded when the salesman affirms defects-free within a year from the date that the purchase was made. It is worth noting that Boehringer Ingelheim was silent on the above. However, the law creates implied warranties, and this requires mandatory transfer of title to goods, unless otherwise stated as exclusion by the contract. Nevertheless, in case of injuries, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) stipulates that such contractual limitations should not be enforced (The Free dictionary, 2012). The implied warranty of merchantability requires that goods should meet certain standards of quality, and this ensures that the goods are suitable for ordinary use. Safety requirement is also a great necessity for such goods. Strict liability This law ensures that the seller takes full responsibility for all defective goods that negatively affects the safety of the consumer or his property. The vendor in this case is restricted from selling harmful products. He is further to take responsibility even if he exhibited utmost care in handling the product, even though the consumer may buy the product elsewhere that had no direct dealing with the vendor. Consequently, Boehringer Ingelheim is liable for the death of 542 patients; 2397 consumers who suffered hemorrhage, and 294 who suffered kidney failure (Malik, 2012). Conclusion The need for product liability laws has increased in tandem with increased industrial processes that deal with the manufacture of goods. This comes from the realization of the need to protect consumers from malpractices of manufacturers, who are more concerned with making profits at the expense of consumers. References Malik, S. (2012). Pradaxa Bleeding Death Lawsuits June 2012 Update. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from http://fortworth.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/pradaxa-bleeding-death-lawsuits-june-2012-update.aspx?googleid=301784 Moore, M. (2001). Product Liability Entering the Twenty-First Century: The US Perspective. Washington: Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. Nolo. (2012). Defective Product Claims: Theories of Liability. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from Nolo: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defective-product-claims-theories-of-30044.htm The Free dictionary. (2012). Product Liability. Retrieved June 2012, from The Free dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Product+Liability Read More