Upcoming Court Cases May Harm Those Who Have Suffered Personal Injury
When an appeal is made to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justices have the option of deciding which cases they want to hear. Those cases that are chosen are generally selected because the law affecting the litigants has long been unsettled or is otherwise controversial.
This particular Supreme Court term has caught the attention of lawyers who represent injured people. A number of cases up for review have the potential to negatively affect personal injury law; legal pundits have suggested that these cases are not likely to favor the interests of injured people, given the conservative make-up of the current Supreme Court.
Personal injury attorneys are closely watching several cases, including:
- Williamson v. Mazda: Should federal safety regulations set the only standards for safety equipment, or should jurors have the opportunity to decide that a car manufacturer should have taken additional safety precautions?
- Goodyear Tires v. Brown: Before a company can be called into a courtroom in the U.S., the company must have some connection with the country. This case turns upon the strength of the connection needed. If one company sells a foreign manufacturer's products in the U.S., but the foreign manufacturer does not have any other connection with the country, can that manufacturer be forced to defend itself in a U.S. courtroom?
- J.McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro: Much like Goodyear Tires v. Brown, this case examines the limits of U.S. courts and their rights to decide cases involving foreign manufacturers. In this case, the issue is whether the manufacturer can be called into a court in a state where the manufacturer did not sell or market a product. J. McIntyre Machinery sold a product to a company in Ohio, which ultimately injured a person in New Jersey. Should the manufacturer be required to defend itself in a New Jersey court?
- Brusewitz v. Wyeth: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act currently protects vaccine manufacturers from certain lawsuits when an individual who has been given a vaccine suffers an adverse reaction. The injured parties in this case seek to limit the immunity of drug manufacturers, but it seems unlikely that this case will be decided in the favor of the injured party.
These cases could limit the ability of plaintiff lawyers to prosecute claims on behalf of injured clients - and what limits plaintiff lawyers' ability to bring cases also limits the ability of individuals and their families to obtain compensation for serious injuries or wrongful death.
Those who defend or are otherwise affected by personal injury lawsuits often frame plaintiff lawyers as villains; that plaintiff lawyers drive up the cost of health care and make it more difficult for companies to do business, for example.
But plaintiff lawyers are the only thing standing between negligent people and companies and those who have been harmed by their dangerous products, reckless or inattentive driving, and a host of other types of accidents.
