Issue: Under federal law as applied in California, should a claim be preempted by FIFRA (Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) simply because the allegations refer to product features mentioned on the product label?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure, Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Preemption of state law; Product label; FIFRA (Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) |
| Jurisdiction: | California, Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 850 F. Supp. 516 |
| Cited Statutes: | 21 U.S.C. § 360k |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
The case law simply does not limit the applicability of the test to claims that do not refer to matters addressed on the product’s label. In fact, the case law does not even discuss the issue. The reasons for this omission are obvious. Given the extensiveness of FIFRA’s regulatory scheme and in particular its labeling requirements, it is inevitable that the vast majority of design-defect claims will somehow touch upon characteristics mentioned on the product’s label.
Furthermore, such an interpretation would go far beyond Congress’ intent and effectively grant complete immunity from design-defect liability to the entire pesticide industry, clearly an incorrect result given Congress’ determination that the industry needed more far‑reaching, consistent regulation in order to protect people and the environment. As Justice Stevens recently stated in a similar context, "[i]t is, to say the least, ‘difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct,’ and it would take language much plainer . . . to convince us that Congress intended that result." Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996) 116 S. Ct. 2240, 2251 (Stevens, J.) (citation omitted).
In Medtronic, Justice Stevens and a plurality of the Court strongly criticized a far-reaching preemption argument under the Medical Device Amendments ("MDA") to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360k. Medtronic, 116 S. Ct. at 2251. The manufacturer’s interpretation of MDA’s preemption provision
effectively precluded state courts from affording […]
margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify; tab-stops:-1.0in’>