Product Liability and Mass Tort Alert The New Jersey Supreme Court Dismisses Out-of-State Plaintiff’s Product Liability Action Based on Choice-of-Law Principles
In a decision that could have a significant impact on mass tort
dissenting opinion, the defendants appealed as of right to the
litigation in New Jersey, last week, the New Jersey Supreme
Court held under a choice-of-law analysis that Michigan, rather
In another divided decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court
than New Jersey, law properly applies to a Michigan resident
reversed the Appellate Division and remanded the matter to the
suing two New Jersey-based pharmaceutical companies. In
trial court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Applying
Rowe v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., the plaintiff, a Michigan
the State’s governmental interest analysis, the Court found that
resident, filed suit against two New Jersey pharmaceutical
Michigan had the weightier interest. According to the Court,
manufacturers, Hoffman La Roche, Inc. and Roche
the purpose of New Jersey’s rebuttable presumption was not to
Laboratories, Inc., alleging that the companies failed to
encourage tort recoveries by plaintiffs in order to deter
adequately warn about the health risks associated with the acne
corporate misconduct. Rather, the purpose was to limit the
liability of manufacturers of FDA-approved products. On the
Both of the companies have their principal places of business in
other hand, Michigan’s interest was to effectively immunize
Nutley, New Jersey where Hoffman La Roche, manufactures,
these manufacturers as well as promote the availability of
labels and packages the drug, and Roche Laboratories markets,
prescription drugs to Michigan residents. In light of those
sells and distributes it. According to the Court, almost all
manufacturing and sales activity of Accutane takes place in
To allow a life-long Michigan resident who received an
New Jersey. The plaintiff, Robert Rowe, has lived his entire
FDA-approved drug in Michigan and alleges injuries
life in Michigan and was prescribed the drug in Michigan by a
sustained in Michigan to by-pass his own state’s law and
Michigan physician. The plaintiff alleged that after taking the
obtain compensation for his injuries in this State’s courts
drug for three months he suffered from severe depression and
completely undercuts Michigan’s interests, while
became suicidal. He maintained that the defendants failed to
overvaluing our true interest in this litigation.
In this instance, where the challenged drug was approved
In the early 1980s, the United States Food and Drug
by the FDA and suit was brought by an out-of-state plaintiff
Administration (FDA) approved Accutane and its labeling to
who has no cause of action in his home state, this State’s
treat recalcitrant nodular acne. Under a Michigan statute, that
interest in ensuring that our corporations are deterred from
FDA approval effectively precluded the plaintiff’s suit as the
producing unsafe products . . . is not paramount. Our
statute created a conclusive presumption that the warning was
interest in deterring local manufacturing corporations from
adequate. However, under New Jersey law, the approval only
providing inadequate product warnings, within the context
created a rebuttable presumption that the drug’s warning was
of an FDA approved drug, must yield to Michigan’s
adequate. Therefore, the question of which state’s law applied
Although the Court’s decision was limited to the facts before it,
On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed
it does provide a significant victory for New Jersey
the suit after concluding that Michigan law applied. On appeal,
corporations being sued by out-of-state plaintiffs under product
a divided Appellate Division panel reversed, holding, under
liability theories. It is no mystery that New Jersey’s broad and
New Jersey’s governmental interest analysis, that New Jersey
plaintiff-friendly products liability statute is the impetus for
had a stronger interest in applying its law. Based on the
many out-of-state plaintiffs filing suit in the State where they
are allegedly harmed by products produced by New Jersey
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
corporations. Indeed, mass tort litigation has become a
Baltimore Philadelphia
common occurrence in the State. Yet, the Rowe decision
certainly provides a useful tool for defendants to argue that a
plaintiff’s home-state law should apply and thereby help deter
The Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP Bethesda Product Liability and Mass Tort Group @ ballardspahr.com
John P. Lavelle, Jr., Partner in Charge lavellej
Salt Lake City Las Vegas Washington, DC New Jersey Wilmington, DE
This newsletter is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
and is intended to alert the recipients to new developments in the law. It should
not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or
circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only,
and you are urged to consult your own lawyer concerning your situation and
This publication is available online at www.ballardspahr.com
2007 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
Baltimore • Bethesda • Denver • Las Vegas • New Jersey • Philadelphia • Phoenix • Salt Lake City • Washington, DC • Wilmington, DE
Ann. Méd. Vét., 2003, 147 , 65-76 FORMATION CONTINUE – ARTICLE DE SYNTHESE L’herpèsvirose canine RONSSE V.1,3, POULET H.2, VERSTEGEN J.3, THIRY E.11 Département des Maladies Infectieuses et Parasitaires, Service de Virologie, Epidémiologie et Pathologie des Maladies Virales, Faculté de MédecineVétérinaire, Université de Liège, Boulevard de Colonster 20, B43bis, 4000 Liège
Product Liability