Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Hot on Facebook
Man Tries to Order Priciest Starbucks Drink Ever Total cost: $23.60 »

Supreme Court to Hear Huge Consumer Rights Case

Can victims sue if FDA has approved drug?

By Jason Farago,  Newser Staff

Posted Sep 19, 2008 9:30 AM CDT

(Newser) – The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in what could be one of the biggest consumer-rights cases in years, reports the New York Times. The case focuses on whether customers who have been harmed by products that meet federal regulations can sue the manufacturer for damages, and is centered on a Vermont woman whose arm was amputated after an intravenous migraine drug gave her gangrene.

The woman sued the drug company in Vermont and won more than $6 million—but now that award is being disputed in the Supreme Court, whose term opens next month. The legal principle in question is called pre-emption, and the Roberts court has taken on a slew of similar cases in an attempt to clarify what one expert calls “the fiercest battle in products liability law today.”

An intravenous drug meant to ease the pain of a migraine led to the amputation of Diana Levine's hand and forearm.
An intravenous drug meant to ease the pain of a migraine led to the amputation of Diana Levine's hand and forearm.   (Flickr)
The Supreme Court will hear a case concerning a $6 million award to Diana Levine, whose arm was amputated after a medical accident.
The Supreme Court will hear a case concerning a $6 million award to Diana Levine, whose arm was amputated after a medical accident.   (Flickr)
The Supreme Court will hear a case concerning a $6 million award to Diana Levine, whose arm was amputated after a medical accident.
The Supreme Court will hear a case concerning a $6 million award to Diana Levine, whose arm was amputated after a medical accident.   (Flickr)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Federal pre-emption is the fiercest battle in products liability law today. The court clearly recognizes this, as it ... seems eager to give clarity to what has been, to date, an undisputably muddled area of law. - Catherine M. Sharkey, New York University law professor

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Be the first to comment on this story.

More Newser Stories

Colbert Making Supreme Court Look Stupid

Supreme Court Bans Warrantless GPS Tracking

Supreme Court Axes Texas Electoral Map

Death Row Inmate Won't Die Over Mail Glitch

Judge Roberts: All Justices Can Rule on Obamacare


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne