Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC, 131s.Ct. 1068, 179 L.Ed.2d 1 (2011)

Issue: Defendant Hannah Bruesewitz was given a vaccine distributed by Wyeth LLC at the age of six months. Within 24-hours of the vaccine entering her body, Hannah began to have an extraordinary amount seizures and over the next month would have over one hundred and be diagnosed with residual seizure disorder and developmental delay. Hannah’s parents filled a claim for relief under the NCVIA, and got denied. They then moved forward by suing the company Wyeth, for strict product liability.

Rule: Under the NCVIA, Manufacturers are generally exempt from liability. If they have followed through and obeyed all of the necessary regulatory requirements. And most importantly and directly specific to this case the …show more content…
The judgement of the trial court is affirmed.

Johnson v. Medtronic, Inc. 365 S.W.3d 226 (2012)

Issue: The Defendant Jeffrey Johnson was taken to the hospital due to the need for treatment of a heart disorder. The doctor who treated the defendant used a device manufactured by Medtronic to treat him. The doctor however did not read the device instructions properly and misused the product resulting in the near death of the defendant. Johnson filed a law suit under failure to provide adequate warnings, and defective design.

Rule: A product is defective, subjectively only when foreseeable risks posed by the product can be reduced or avoided by reasonable instructions or warnings.

Analysis: The fact that a certain use of a product is conflicting to the manufacturer’s instructions does not, necessarily cement that the use could not be anticipated. The designs defect and failure to warn theories include a variety of theories specifically directed towards protecting consumers from dangers that can surface in different