SUMMARY
- No consumer expectations test for medical devices cases in Florida Strategic lawsuits for product liability
- II. Medical devices cases will get tougher
I. No consumer expectations test for medical devices cases in Florida
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal has recently strengthened medical device manufacturers through approving the use of the risk-utility test, Cavanaugh v. Stryker Corp., — So. 2d —, 2020 WL 5937405 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 7, 2020). The court had to deal with a wrongful death lawsuit against a manufacturer of a medical device used to remove blood and clear the surgical field.
What legal standards have been involved here? The consumer expectations test determines liability based on whether the product do not function as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or when used in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. In opposition to that, the risk-utility test determines liability based on whether the risk of danger in the design outweighs the benefit. The court followed the manufacturer’s opinion too, the jury only had to find whether the risk of danger in the design outweighs the benefit in accordance with the trial court’s ruling. This new judgement is in contrast to Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp. (an asbestos case), where the High Court applied the consumer expectations test.
II. Medical devices cases will get tougher
Bottom line: The claimant usually will not meet the risk-utility test. In court, it should be easier to show that the risk of danger in the design of a product does not outweigh its benefit. Hence, design defect claims will be less likely successful. The risk of successful class actions ruining businesses will be less. Medical staff using such devices will become more important in similar cases if this case-law prevails. This court ruling probably also applies for drug cases.
For discussion, please feel free to contact us!
