Renzulli Law Firm

NEWTOWN, Conn., May 11, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) requires the dismissal of the Ileto v. Glock, RSR, case originally filed in August 2000.

"This is exactly the kind of case that Congress had in mind when it passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. "We applaud the court of appeals decision."

Manufacturers have a duty to provide consumers with reasonable warnings and instructions regarding the risks associated with their products. Courts examine several factors in determining whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers of a particular risk. Included amongst these factors are the gravity of the risks posed by the product, the likelihood that it will cause injury to an un-informed consumer, the class of users expected to use the product, the setting under which the product is likely to be used, and the intended or foreseeable uses to which the product can be put.

A major move is underway to regulate the use of toxic metals in children's products which can cause abdominal pain and lung disease at high concentrations. On January 11, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chairman Inez Tenenbaum urged regulators at the APEC Toy Safety Initiative/Dialogue in Hong Kong to keep "hazardous or toxic levels of heavy metals" out of "toys and children's products." According to Tenenbaum, heavy metals like cadmium "are going to attract attention in the United States for consumer adovates, the media and parents." She warned that voluntary efforts by manufacturers and importers would not be enough. Tenenbaum's statement came just a day after The Associated Press issued an investigative report detailing alarming levels of cadmium in children's products.

On June 22, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Appellate District in Portage County, Ohio issued a decision affirming an order granting summary judgment in favor of O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. and Maverick Arms, Inc. and dismissing the complaint against them in its entirety.

On December 26, 2002, Plaintiff, Nathan Gay, then sixteen years old, was shot by his friend, Billy Clayton, Jr., with a Mossberg 500 pump-action shotgun and rendered a paraplegic. Billy Clayton, Jr. claimed that he did not know that the shotgun was loaded and that it accidentally discharged. Plaintiff argued that the shotgun was defectively designed because it did not have a loaded chamber indicator or "other safety devices" that would have alerted Billy Clayton, Jr. to the fact that it was loaded.

Behemoth brand name drug maker Wyeth scored a victory for all brand names in November -- but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals left generic drug makers exposed to tort attack. In the case, Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit held that brand name drug manufacturers cannot be held liable for alleged inadequate warnings where the plaintiff never used the brand name. However, the panel held that warning claims against generic drug manufacturers are not preempted by the Food Drug And Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

The FDCA requires that generic drugs exhibit the same labeling as brand name bioequivalents. The ruling should send a strong signal to generic drug manufacturers that they will be subject to a number of lawsuits for inadequate warnings or label defects. Preparation to avoid those suits and to manage litigation must commence immediately.

A thorough discussion of the case can be found here.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has vowed to increasingly scrutinize companies that share common board members. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz made the pronouncement in October shortly after Apple board of director's member Arthur Levinson resigned from Google, Inc.'s board without providing an explanation. In a statement released by the FTC, Leibowitz hinted that Levinson's resignation was the result of a well-publicized inquiry by the FTC into potential antitrust violations under Section 8 of the Clayton Act by Apple and Google. Section 8 of the Clayton Act prohibits a person from serving as a director or officer of two competing companies, with certain exceptions.