Now the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a Pennsylvania judge was correct in allowing jurors to consider that evidence. (Thanks Abnormal Use for the tip.) The decision is interesting because it discusses not only the logical tension embedded in much modern products-liability law but the intellectual calisthenics federal judges must engage in when hearing a case based on state tort law.
Yesterday, the U. S. Supreme Court recognized that Congress meant what it said, holding that the Vaccine Act expressly preempts all state-law productsliability suits challenging the design of widely administered childhood vaccines, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already determined to be safe and effective.
The case requires the high court to determine whether the motor vehicle safety standards established by the federal government effectively preempt a productsliability claim under state tort law.