Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 19

Johnson v. Medtronic, Inc.
FACTS In 2005, Jeffrey Johnson experienced an episode of atrial fibrillation, a heart rhythm disorder, and was taken to an emergency room. Dr. David Hahn used a defibrillator manufactured by Medtronic, Inc., to deliver electric shocks to Johnson's heart. The defibrillator had synchronous and asynchronous modes, and it reverted to the asynchronous mode after each use. Hahn intended to deliver synchronized shocks, which would have required him to select the synchronous mode for each shock. Hahn had not read the device's instructions, which Medtronic provided both in a manual and on the device itself. As a result, he delivered a synchronized shock followed by twelve asynchronous shocks, which endangered Johnson's life. Johnson and his wife filed a product liability suit against Medtronic, asserting that Medtronic had provided inadequate warnings about the defibrillator and that the device had a design defect. The trial court found for Medtronic under both product liability theories, and the Johnsons appealed.
ISSUE Could Johnson pursue a product liability claim alleging either that Medtronic's warnings were inadequate or that the device had a design defect ?
DECISION No and yes, respectively. The Missouri appellate court held that Johnson could not pursue a claim based on the inadequacy of Medtronic's warnings, but that he could pursue a claim alleging a design defect. Thus, the trial court's decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
REASON The court first held that Johnson could not pursue a claim alleging that Medtronic provided inadequate warnings. Johnson offered no evidence that he was harmed because the defibrillator was sold without an adequate warning. Instead, the record showed that Medtronic's instructions would have prevented Johnson's injuries if Dr. Hahn had followed or even read them. Nevertheless, the court held that Johnson could pursue his design defect claim. Johnson provided evidence that Hahn's misuse was reasonably foreseeable. Importantly, Medtronic knew that other users had inadvertently delivered asynchronous shocks after failing to reset the device. The court concluded that Johnson was not precluded from bringing a claim for design defect simply because he could not pursue a claim of inadequate warnings. In some cases, "a manufacturer may be held liable where it chooses to warn of the danger... rather than preclude the danger by design."
CRITICAL THINKING-Legal Consideration What could Medtronic do to avoid possible liability to plaintiffs like the Johnsons? Was there a reasonable alternative design for the defibrillator?