Product Liability Is an Area of Law

Product liability is an area of law in which any organization that either makes products (manufacturers) or distributes to the public (makes available) may be held responsible for potential injuries that may be caused by those products. In the United States, claims for product liability are usually associated with some type of negligence, breach of warranty, or other consumer protection issues. However, the large majority of product liability laws vary considerably because they are determined from state to state. This, of course, makes it problematical to litigate across state boundaries, as well as ensure that manufacturing requirements are met more universally (Golden, 2000).

Case -- Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation. 331 Oregon 285.14.P.3d596 (2000)

In 1978, Plaintiff received silicone breast implants following a mastectomy. Both implants partially deflated: the first in 1980 (and was replaced), the second in 1992. In 1993, Plaintiff had the implants removed, and it was discovered that one implant had ruptured.

In 1994, Plaintiff filed a suit, alleging that the silicone from the leaking implants had migrated throughout her body and caused personal injury. The defendants maintained that there was insufficient evidence that any injury was caused by their product, and the plaintiff's personal situation was the result of fibromyalgia.

Appearing for the Plaintiff was Dr. Grimm, a Board Certified Neurologist with an advanced degree in neurophysiology. Defense did not question his qualifications in general, but did challenge his ability to apply causation in this case, resulting in a hearing. During extensive questioning, the Judge decided that Dr. Grimm could indicate that he found causality from a medical probability side, that silicone may cause some other physical issues. Dr. Grimm could not, however, say that there was a specific disease that was conclusively proven to be silicone related to a large statistical probability.

The Jury eventually returned a victory for the defendants, and the Plaintiff appealed based on the Court's ruling that excluded Dr. Grimm's causation testimony. The Court of Appeals reviewed the complete case and concluded that the Trial Judge erred when it excluded Dr. Grimm's opinion testimony about causation. The Appellate Court believed that it was up to the Jury to decide the relative merits of opinions and conclusions reached by acknowledged expert witnesses. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court for further processing (NAPIL, "Jennings," 2000).