Supreme Court Issues Far-Reaching Product Liability Opinion

A recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court may have far-reaching consequences for claimants seeking compensation related to product liability injuries. Attorneys for pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) successfully argued for restrictions on where plaintiffs can pursue financial damages. While the case specifically involved a company within the pharmaceutical industry, cases involving other manufacturers and product-makers may also be affected by the Court’s decision.

Details of the case

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. vs. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County stemmed from claims brought against BMS by plaintiffs who alleged injury from a BMS blood thinner product. A large group of claimants, including many who did not reside within the State of California and some who did live in California, filed a class action suit against the company in a California court. BMS sought to stop the out-of-state plaintiffs from pursuing their claims, arguing the California courts did not have jurisdiction to decide claims involving BMS due to BMS’s alleged lack of connections with the state. They asserted that the out-of-state claimants did not purchase or take the medication in California, nor was the product manufactured within the state.

The California Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had specific jurisdiction over BMS for all the plaintiffs’ claims, including both in-state and out-of-state plaintiffs, and BMS appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the justices ruled that the California Supreme Court erred and the California courts could not decide the out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims against BMS. In the Court’s opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated, “The mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California—and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the non-residents—does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims.”

Potential impact on product liability claims

This decision by the Court could have far reaching implications for product liability claimants across the country, especially those pursuing mass tort lawsuits. Proponents argue that the decision will limit “forum shopping”; that is, it will prevent claimants from choosing states where courts are supposedly considered more favorable to plaintiffs. They also assert that these restrictions help protect companies from unreasonable and expensive court battles.

Opponents of the Court’s decision argue that it weakens victims’ rights by limiting their ability to hold offending companies accountable. These claimants are no longer able to pool their financial resources and bring successful cases against large corporations. It may also impede the ability of injured parties to bring suit against international corporations for product defects and related injuries.

Product liability claims are extremely complex, particularly without skilled assistance from experienced Georgia product liability attorneys. If you or a family member were injured by a defective product, contact the lawyers of Harris Lowry Manton LLP. Use our contact form to schedule a consultation. We can also be reached at 404-961-7650 in Atlanta, or in Savannah at 912-651-9967.