Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. case brief
summary
696 N.E.2d 909 (Mass. 1998)
CASE FACTS
The injured person had undergone breast implantation surgery with silicone gel breast implants and subsequently suffered from an autoimmune disease.
TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS
The trial judge denied the corporations' motions to exclude the testimony of the injured person and her husband's experts. The court found that the trial judge's findings were not clearly erroneous, her legal conclusions were sound, and there was no error in the trial. The causation opinions of two experts were properly admitted in the absence of classical epidemiological studies. Both witnesses possessed the knowledge, skill, and experience to qualify as experts in their fields. Massachusetts was among a minority of states that applied a hindsight analysis to the duty to warn.
DISCUSSION and HOLDING
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. However, the court changed its product liability law to conform to the clear majority rule regarding what had to be shown to recover in a breach of warranty claim for failure to warn of risks associated with a product.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
696 N.E.2d 909 (Mass. 1998)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiffs, injured person
and her husband, filed a product liability action against defendant
corporations, alleging negligent design, negligent product warnings,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 2 (a) and 9, regarding breast
implants. The husband claimed a loss of consortium. The Superior
Court (Massachusetts) found in favor of the injured person and
husband. The corporations appealed.CASE FACTS
The injured person had undergone breast implantation surgery with silicone gel breast implants and subsequently suffered from an autoimmune disease.
TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS
The trial judge denied the corporations' motions to exclude the testimony of the injured person and her husband's experts. The court found that the trial judge's findings were not clearly erroneous, her legal conclusions were sound, and there was no error in the trial. The causation opinions of two experts were properly admitted in the absence of classical epidemiological studies. Both witnesses possessed the knowledge, skill, and experience to qualify as experts in their fields. Massachusetts was among a minority of states that applied a hindsight analysis to the duty to warn.
DISCUSSION and HOLDING
- The court revised the law such that a defendant would not have been held liable under an implied warranty of merchantability for failure to warn or provide instructions about risks that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time of sale or that could not have been discovered by way of reasonable testing prior to marketing the product.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. However, the court changed its product liability law to conform to the clear majority rule regarding what had to be shown to recover in a breach of warranty claim for failure to warn of risks associated with a product.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment