Pacific Northwest Injury Law Advocate - News & Updates on Personal Injury Law with a Focus on the Northwest & Seattle-Tacoma Metro Area

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a legal theory that would have given asbestos injury attorneys  a new industry to attack with lawsuits.

SCOTUS ruled this past Wednesday in favor of companies involved with the design and manufacture of locomotives and their parts. The estate of the late George Corson, a welder and machinist for a railroad carrier, had sued Railroad Friction Products Corp. and Viad Corp. in Philadelphia, alleging injury from exposure to asbestos in trains and train parts distributed by the companies.

The estate's design-defect and failure-to-warn claims were preempted by the federal Locomotive Inspection Act, the court held in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. The decision was in line with one made by the court 85 years ago in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line.

"(P)etitioners contend that the LIA's preemptive scope does not extend to state common-law claims, as opposed to state legislation or regulation," Thomas wrote.

"Napier, however, held that the LIA 'occup(ied) the entire field of regulating locomotive equipment' to the exclusion of state regulation. That categorical conclusion admits of no exception for state common-law duties and standards of care."

The decision affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It had been removed from a state court to Philadelphia federal court. 

Dissenting were justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion said that the plaintiffs' claim for failure to warn was not preempted, though it agreed the defective design claim was.

The federal government and the American Association for Justice were among the groups supporting the plaintiffs' lawsuit.

"Because the right to a legal remedy for wrongful injury is a fundamental right under the Constitution, courts may not preempt such a cause of action and leave injured persons without remedy unless Congress specifically intended that result," the AAJ's amicus brief said.

"The mere silence of Congress in a statute not directed at railroads rather than manufacturers falls short."

Complaints against 50 other companies were dismissed. 

NOTE: This blog entry is republished from http://www.asbestoslawblog.com/.

This weekend I got to see my last movie at the Seattle International Film Festival. It was "Hot Coffee," a documentary by Susan Saladoff. It made me incredibly proud to be in this profession and to work with some of the best trial lawyers in the country.

The movie is an absolute must-see. Period. Full stop. When the DVD comes out (later this summer), run, don't walk to buy it. Better yet, you can see it if you have HBO later this month. It is not a dry, boring documentary: Al Franken and Paul Grisham keep things lively.

Although I work for a plaintiffs law firm, even I had misconceptions about the infamous "hot coffee" lawsuit against McDonalds. This documentary, however, is not just about opening everyone's eyes to the jaw dropping injuries that Stella Liebeck, the then 79-year old woman sustained from spilling some scalding hot coffee on herself. It reveals how McDonalds had previously received 700 complaints about the ridiculously hot coffee.

Moreover, the film shows how corporations have spent many hundreds of million dollars on distorting the truth about tort claims -- from "tort reform" to caps on damages. Trial lawyers are conveniently pegged as the villains, while insurance companies are portrayed as the victims: a comedy and utter tragedy at the same time.

A doctor specializing in burn injuries explains in "Hot Coffee," that the holding temperature for coffee was so hot that at best, if the coffee touched one's skin for a few seconds, one would suffer 3rd degree burns. Regardless, McDonalds chose to ignore the obvious threat to its customers' safety until brave Ms. Liebeck attempted to hold them accountable. 

The film also features a couple of other poignant stories: One, about an ex-Halliburton worker who was brutally raped by her coworkers in Iraq; but denied the ability to sue her employer/employees thanks to a mandatory arbitration clause. The other story is a needlessly tragic situation, where one twin boy was brain damaged in utero, because of a negligent doctor. That family was essentially robbed of the jury verdict due to the state's cap on damages.

Buy this DVD for all of your friends, family, neighbors, etc., so that they learn how corporations are attempting to dismantle the civil justice system.