Liability for Products

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares91 Views

    Supreme Court Blocks Mexico’s Suit Against U.S. Gunmakers

    by

    The case focused on whether the Mexican government could legally sue U.S. manufacturers over claims that they shared blame for violence by drug cartels.The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Mexican government cannot sue U.S. gun manufacturers to hold them responsible for violence committed by drug cartels.In a unanimous decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the court held that a lawsuit by the Mexican government was barred by U.S. legislation that insulates gun makers from liability. Mexico, she wrote, had not plausibly argued that American gun manufacturers had aided and abetted in unlawful gun sales to Mexican drug traffickers.Mexico had argued that the gun industry’s production and sale of arms in the United States had helped fuel and supply drug cartels, harming the Mexican government. Mexican government lawyers also claimed the companies were aware that some of their guns were illegally trafficked, and that the country should therefore be allowed to sue.During an oral argument in early March, a majority of the justices appeared skeptical that Mexico could prove a direct link between gunmakers and cartel violence. Several justices appeared persuaded that a 2005 law shielding gun makers and distributors from most domestic lawsuits over injuries caused by firearms could also apply to the case brought by the Mexican government.The case began in 2021, when Mexico filed a lawsuit against a number of American gun makers and one distributor, arguing that they shared blame for drug cartel violence. The country asked them for $10 billion in damages.In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts, the Mexican government alleged that the gun industry’s actions had burdened the nation’s police, military and judicial system. Mexico also argued that the U.S. gun industry had been negligent in marketing, distributing and selling high-capacity guns.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Zantac’s Developer Settles Lawsuits Claiming Cancer Link

      by

      GSK, which developed and sold versions of the now-discontinued blockbuster heartburn drug, agreed to pay up to $2.2 billion.The British drug maker GSK said on Wednesday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion to settle most of the lawsuits filed against it by people who claim that they developed cancer after taking a now-discontinued blockbuster heartburn drug commonly known by the brand name Zantac.GSK, which developed the drug decades ago and sold a version of it until 2017, did not admit liability in settling the cases. The evidence is mixed on whether the drug elevates the risk of cancer, but the concern that the drug might was sufficient to get it removed from the market.An over-the-counter medication sold today as Zantac 360 by Sanofi has a different active ingredient from the withdrawn versions of Zantac and has not raised questions about a cancer link.In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration said it had detected low levels of a cancer-causing contaminant known as NDMA in samples of Zantac, which at that time was widely sold by prescription and over the counter. Manufacturers soon voluntarily withdrew their versions of the drug, and pharmacies pulled the products from their shelves.The next year, the F.D.A. recommended that the drug no longer be sold or used, saying that when stored for long periods its active ingredient can degrade and cause a buildup of NDMA, creating a danger of cancer.Other research has found that Zantac users were no more likely to develop cancer than people who took other drugs that suppress the production of stomach acid.Tens of thousands of Zantac users have filed product liability lawsuits against GSK and other makers of versions of Zantac. This year, juries in Illinois that heard the first few such cases sided with the manufacturers or failed to reach a verdict.Several other pharmaceutical companies that previously sold versions of the drug, including Sanofi and Pfizer, reached similar settlements this year. Boehringer Ingelheim, a former manufacturer that has not settled, is in court in California this week defending itself in a jury trial brought by a man who claims that over-the-counter Zantac caused his bladder cancer.GSK’s settlement on Wednesday will resolve claims by about 80,000 plaintiffs in the United States. The company said it had also agreed to pay $70 million to settle a whistle-blower complaint by an independent laboratory, Valisure, whose testing first raised the alarm about a link between Zantac and cancer. In that lawsuit, Valisure accused GSK of knowing that the drug elevates cancer risk and of keeping quiet about it.The suit was unsealed this year after the Justice Department declined to either join the suit or recommend that it be dismissed. The company denies Valisure’s allegations. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court to Decide Whether Mexico Can Sue U.S. Gun Makers

      by

      The justices will consider whether a 2005 law that gives gun makers broad immunity applies in the case, which accuses them of complicity in supplying cartels with weapons.The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether Mexico may sue gun manufacturers in the United States for aiding in the trafficking of weapons used by drug cartels.Mexico sued seven gun makers and one distributor in 2021, blaming them for rampant violence caused by illegal gun trafficking from the United States spurred by the demand of Mexican drug cartels for military-style weapons.Mexico has strict gun control laws that it says make it virtually impossible for criminals to obtain firearms legally. Indeed, the suit said, its single gun store issues fewer than 50 permits a year. But gun violence is rampant.The lawsuit, which seeks billions of dollars in damages, said that 70 to 90 percent of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico came from the United States and that gun dealers in border states sell twice as many firearms as dealers in other parts of the country.Judge Dennis F. Saylor, of the Federal District Court in Boston, dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit, saying it was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that prohibits many kinds of suits against makers and distributors of firearms. The law, Judge Saylor wrote, “bars exactly this type of action from being brought in federal and state courts.”But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, revived the suit, saying that it qualified for an exception to the law, which authorizes claims for knowing violations of firearms laws that are a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuriesIn urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, the gun makers said that “Mexico’s suit has no business in an American court.” Mexico’s legal theory, they added, was an “eight-step Rube Goldberg, starting with the lawful production and sale of firearms in the United States and ending with the harms that drug cartels inflict on the Mexican government.”“Absent this court’s intervention,” the gun makers’ petition continued, “Mexico’s multi-billion-dollar suit will hang over the American firearms industry for years, inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters.”In response, Mexico said the defendants were complicit in mass violence.“The flood of petitioners’ firearms from sources in the United States to cartels in Mexico is no accident,” Mexico’s brief said. “It results from petitioners’ knowing and deliberate choice to supply their products to bad actors, to allow reckless and unlawful practices that feed the crime-gun pipeline, and to design and market their products in ways that petitioners intend will drive up demand among the cartels.” More