Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.
Register to Do Business, Register to Be Sued? Illinois’ New Jurisdictional Trap for Toxic Tort Litigants
By Elizabeth C. Christen, Jenna Seiler, Natalie Abdou & Bryan D. Pasciak
For companies operating nationwide, rules governing where they can be sued are consequential — especially in high-exposure toxic tort litigation. Illinois’ enactment of SB 328 raises the stakes in these cases even more, conferring general jurisdiction over companies who register or merely transact business in Illinois.
Close, But Not Quite: Eastern District of North Carolina Excludes Experts Whose General Expertise Does Not Enable Specific Opinions Offered
By Eric M. Friedman
Even “[a] supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions” without passing muster under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Clark v. Takata Corp. (7th Cir. 1999). A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina shows this principle is at play not only when critiquing an expert’s methodology, but also the expert’s expertise.
No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.
By Alena Markley
A summary judgment from the Southern District of Georgia shows the critical role of defect evidence (or lack thereof) in negligence claims involving medical devices. In Rudzinskas, allegations that a medical device malfunctioned were not sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on negligent manufacturing and failure-to-warn claims.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.