Preparing for future health litigation: The application of products liability law to nanotechnology

Nanotechnology Law and Business

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 54-63

  Monica Jr , John C ^a   Lewis, Patrick T ^a   Monica, John C ^b  

^a Thompson Hine LLP   (United States)

^b LLP   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEFECTIVE DESIGN; DRUG-DELIVERY SYSTEMS; NANOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS;

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; CONTROLLED DRUG DELIVERY; ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY; LUBRICANTS; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 33748743359     PISSN: 15462080     EISSN: 15462080     Source Type: Trade Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Toni Feder, Scholars Probe Nanotechnology's Promise and Its Potential Problems, PHYSICS TODAY (2004) available at http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/ iss-6/p30.html (last visited Jan. 23, 2006).
2. See, e.g., Cathryn M. Delude, MIT News Office, MIT Engineers An Anti-Cancer Smart Bomb (July 27, 2005), available at http://web.mit.edu/ newsoffice/2005/nanocell.html (last visited Jan. 23, 2006) (regarding recent work by R. Sasisekharan et al. on "[t]he dual-chamber, double acting, drug packing 'nanocell' [which] proved effective and safe, with prolonged survival, against two distinct forms of cancers-melanoma and Lewis lung cancer-in mice.").
3. Lux RESEARCH, INC., SIZING NANOTECHNOLOGY's VALUE CHAIN-NEW REPORT FROM Lux RESEARCH (Oct. 26, 2004), available at http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid= 1248 (last visited Jan. 23, 2006).
4. Dangers Come In Small Particles, HAZARDS, available at http://www.hazards.org/nanotech/safety.htm (last visited Jan. 23, 2006).
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Although nanotubes are over sixty times smaller than asbestos fibers, images of nanotubes can appear strikingly similar to asbestos fibers. See, e.g., JOHN C. MILLER ET AL., THE HANDBOOK OF NANOTECHNOLOGY BUSINESS, POLICY, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 52 (2004) (providing SEM images of randomly oriented nanotubes and fibrous asbestos). For a general discussion of the toxicity arguments set forth by different environmental groups,
8. see Barnaby Feder, As Uses Grow, Tiny Materials' Safety Is Hard To Pin Down, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 3, 2003, at C1.
9. See STEPHEN J. CARROLL ET AL., RAND INSTITUTE FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, ASBESTOS LITIGATION (2005), available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/ RAND_MG162.pdf (last visited Jan. 23, 2006).
10. See id.
11. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973).
12. Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897 (1963).
13. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1275 (5th ed. 1979).
14. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2 (1998).
15. Some states also have a "consumer expectations" test, in addition to the risk-utility test, for measuring when a product is defective due to design.
16. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2 cmt. b (1998).
17. See, e.g., General Motors Corp. v. Edwards, 482 So.2d 1176 (Ala. 1985). For a sampling of other states adopting this approach
18. see also 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. § 5/2-2104 (West 1993) (defining Illinois's design defect statute to require proof of the existence of the safer, alternative design); LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.56 (West 1988) (same under Louisiana law); Uloth v. City Tank Corp., 384 N.E.2d 1188 (Mass. 1978) (Massachusetts law); Voss v. Black & Decker Mfr. Co., 450 N.E.2d 204 (N.Y. 1983) (New York law); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2307.75 (Anderson 2005) (Ohio law).
19. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2 cmt. d, II(B) (1998).
20. Id. (quoting Radiation Technology, Inc. v. Ware Constr. Co., 445 So.2d 329 (Ha. 1983)) (emphasis added). For other examples of courts applying this basic reasoning
21. see also Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 902 P.2d 54 (N.M. 1995); Claytor v. General Motors Corp., 286 S.E.2d 129 (S.C. 1982) (describing South Carolina's risk balancing test).
22. See, e.g., Halphen v. Johns-Mansville Sales Corp., 484 So.2d 110 (La. 1986); O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 463 A.2d 298 (N.J. 1983);
23. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2 cmt. d, IV(D) (1998).
24. Fibreboard v. Fenton, 845 P.2d 1168, 1174 (Colo. 1993) (en bane).
25. See, e.g., IND. CODE § 33-l-1.5-4(b)(4) (1988) (Conformance with the generally recognized state of the art at the time the product was designed is an affirmative defense to an action based in strict liability in tort); KY. REV. STAT.§ 411.310(2) (1978) (establishing a presumption that a product is not defective if its design conforms to generally recognized and prevailing standards or the state of the art in existence at the time the product was designed).
26. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2 cmt. d, IV(B) (1998) (citing In re Hawaii Fed. Asbestos Cases, 960 F.2d 806 (9th Cir. 1992); Hayes v. Ariens Co., 462 N.E.2d 273, 277 (Mass. 1984); Sternhagen v. Dow Co., 935 P.2d 1139 (Mont. 1997); Carrecter v. Colson Equip. Co., 499 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987)).
27. Id.; see also, Stanczyk v. Black & Decker, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 565 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Glover v. B.I.C. Corp., 987 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1993); Beech v. Outboard Marine Corp., 584 So.2d 447 (Ala. 1991).
28. 450 N.E.2d 204 (N.Y. 1983).
29. Id. at 208-09.
30. Id.
31. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2(a) (1998).
32. See also, Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 881 (Alaska 1979); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 573 P.2d 443, 454 (Cal. 1978) (defining a manufacturing defect as one that "differs from manufacturer's intended result or other ostensible identical units of the same product line").
33. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2 cmt. a.
34. Id.
35. Hoven v. Kelble, 256 N.W.2d 379, 391 (Wis. 1977).
36. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2 cmt. A (1998).
37. See, e.g., Salt River Proj. Agri. Improv. & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 694 P.2d 198, 206 (Ariz. 1984) (noting that "the manufacturer who is made liable to the consumer for defects in a product will do what can be done to see that there are no such defects");
38. Rosemary Kelley, Comment, Prescription Drugs and Strict Liability: The Flaw in the Ointment, 19 PAC. L.J. 193, 198 (1987) (describing the incentive that strict liability gives manufacturers to make safer products).
39. This assumption is made purely for simplicity's sake. In fact, there has been research suggesting that the variance in degrees of injury from product defects is difficult to predict in advance. See Alan Schwarte, The Case Against Strict Liability, 60 FORDHAM L. REV. 819, 823 & n.6 (1992) (arguing that accident costs are hard to predict because they vary among consumers).
40. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS § 2(c) (1998).
41. Id. at cmt. j.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Id. at cmt. j.
45. Cf. id.
46. Id.
47. Id. at § 6;
48. see also, Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 517 (Ill. 1987).
49. Borel, 493 F.2d at 1086.
50. Id. at 1088-90.
51. Id. at 1090.
52. Certain studies have shown the potential for toxicity from "ultrafine" particles. See, e.g., K. Donaldson et al., Ultrafine (Nanometre) Particle Mediated Lung Injury, 29 J. AEROSOL Sci. 553 (1998);
53. W. G. Kuschner et al., Human Pulmonary Responses to Experimental Inhalation of High Concentration Fine and Ultrafine Magnesium Oxide Particles, 105 ENVT'L. HEALTH PERSPECT. 1234 (1997);
54. H. C. Yeh, In Vivo Deposition of Inhaled Ultrafine Particles in the Respiratory Tract of Rhesus Monkeys, 27 AEROSOL Sci. TECH. 465 (1997);
55. J. Ferin et al., Pulmonary Retention of Ultrafine and Fine Particles in Rats, 6 CELL MOL. BIOL. 535-42 (1992). Other studies, however, suggest that nanosized particles may not be toxic.
56. See, e.g., S. A. Murphy et al., The Response of Lung Epithelium to Well Characterized Fine Particles, 62 LIFE Sci. 1789-99 (1998);
57. G. Oberdorster et al., Acute Pulmonary Effects of Ultrafine Partciles in Rats and Mice, HEALTH EFFECTS INST. (Aug. 2000).
58. See MARGARET M. KOESEL ET AL., SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE: SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES FOR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL LITIGATION (2000).