Yesterday the Supreme Court granted certiorari to Williamson v Mazda Motors of America, Inc., a case that will challenge how far preemption extends with respect to motor vehicles. The first question is whether or not compliance with the federal motor vehicle safety standards preempt state common law claims for not having a lap/shoulder belt in one of the seating positions. The second question is whether failure to warn of the dangers and risks of only having a lap belt in the car is preempted.
Our firm has decades of experience in auto product liability cases. If you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident and believe the auto manufacturers are responsible contact an attorney here.
The court also asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on two related cases PLIVA Inc., v. Mensing and Actavis Elizabeth v. Mensing. These two cases deal with the liability of generic manufacturers in product liability cases.
If the Supreme Court were to decide that the generic manufacturers of metoclopramide/Reglan were not responsible for warning patients and doctors of the increased side effects of their drugs it could by devastating to all people taking prescription drugs, leaving them without redress when they have experienced harmful side effects. Metoclopramide (the generic form of Reglan) has an increased association with Tardive dyskensia and other movement disorders. Generic manufacturers are important in bringing down costs, but should not do so at the expense of patients. What these cases boil down to are pharmaceutical companies, that are willing to put your health at risk to help their bottom line, are trying to escape liability for warnings they had the power to change.
Our attorneys having been working hard on these cases for quite some time and are deeply involved in the litigation in New Jersey. If you have experienced harmful side effects as a result of taking metoclopramide/Reglan contact the experienced drug lawyers at Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo Plotkin & Hellman LLP for a free consultation.