In case you missed it, ‘cause I did (Well said, pt II)
Well said, too. This editorial in the New York Times also discusses the Wyeth case and what it means more broadly for Americans' ability to protect themselves against dangerous products:
For the court to broadly endorse the concept of “implied pre-emption” in this case would show disrespect for the considered decisions of Congress and could foreclose injury suits involving not only drugs, but also motor vehicles, household products and other things. The ultimate effect would be to undermine consumer safety.
The editorial also calls for federal action to curb the preemption problem, something advocated in our report recommending pro-civil justice policies for the Presidential candidates. From the editorial:
We hope this business-friendly Supreme Court will preserve the consumer protection that state tort actions often provide. Otherwise, the incoming president and Congress will need to pass corrective legislation.
I'm glad these issues are getting more attention from the civil justice community. The general public has a right to know the real implications of tort "reforms."