State of the Art Defense
After eight hours of deliberations, a Montana jury found that a Breg infusion shoulder pump was defective and caused injury to an orthopedic surgeon.
Plaintiff's verdict? Not so fast. The jury found the product was defective but that the infusion pump conformed to the state-of-the-art design at the time it was sold. This can be fatal to a failure to warn claim.
The state-of-the-art defense under Maryland law in strict liability, failure to warn cases was explained in the landmark claim of Owens-Illinois Inc. v. Zenobia (which is best known for requiring actual malice for punitive damages in Maryland). Zenobia found that the manufacturer of a product, which is defective only because of the lack of an adequate warning, is not liable when the failure to warn resulted from an absence of knowledge of how dangerous the product was. Still, required knowledge is "knew or should have known" - it can be established by evidence that the risk should have been known because it was known in the scientific or expert community. This knowledge is called the 'state of the art' evidence.
Continue reading "State of the Art Defense" »
An article in the
Today in sunny San Diego, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is hearing plaintiffs’ requests (see our 