The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142, decided June 24, 2013, may assist defense counsel in defending product liability cases involving FIFRA-regulated products such as herbicides and pesticides. Although Bartlett involved design defect claims against manufacturers of generic drugs, which are regulated by FDA, the principles enunciated in Bartlett potentially have much greater application.
In Bartlett, the court held that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempts state-law design defect claims against manufacturers of generic drugs. The court rejected outright plaintiff’s contention that under the so-called “stop-selling” theory, a generic manufacturer could comply with both federal and state law merely by removing its drug from the market.
In rejecting that argument, Justice Samuel Alito
, writing for the majority, held that “the incoherence of the stop-selling theory becomes plain when viewed through the lens of our previous cases. In every instance in which the court has found impossibility pre-emption, the ‘direct conflict’ between federal and state law duties could easily have been avoided if the regulated actor had simply ceased acting.”
Thus, in reversing the First Circuit
decision, the court slammed the door on plaintiffs hoping to circumvent the preemption defense by contending that a manufacturer might merely stop selling the product.
In an article in Law360 titled, “Bartlett’s Benefits Will Extend Beyond Generic Drug Makers
,” 6/28/13, commentators offer the view that pesticide manufacturers may now be protected from plaintiff alleging a stop-selling theory of liability. If the case’s holding is so extended, plaintiffs should no longer be able to allege that an herbicide manufacturer should not have placed a pesticide into commerce in the first instance. In essence, this is a variation of the often espoused argument that a product should not be marketed because its risks outweigh any potential benefits. After all, the whole point of federal regulation is the underlying assumption you are going to market the product.
This blog was originally posted on July 2 by William A. Ruskin on Toxic Tort Litigation blog. Click here
to see the original post.