Jim Stewart wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote:

From CNN:
The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling Wednesday, said federal
medical-device regulations prevent patients from bringing state
product-liability lawsuits unless a medical-device company violated
U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations.


That's clear enough...

"This decision shows that the extensive degree and nature of FDA
regulation necessarily means that its scientific decisions may not be
second-guessed by unscientific state juries," said Daniel Troy, a
partner at Sidney Austin LLP and a former FDA legal counsel.


That's one lawyer's opinion and I think you have to
accept it as-such. I would speculate that the decision
was more about keeping medical-device manufacturers
from going broke from lawsuits. Remember that sick
people are using the device and sick people sometimes
die.

It would seem to me that the manufacturers of certificated aircraft
could argue for a similar protection since the aircraft must meet
stringent tests and design parameters in order to recieve a type
certificate from the FAA. Heck, they could even use this ruling in
favor of Medtronic to support their case. Piper, Cessna, Lycoming,
Textron, anybody out there listening?


I don't think you can take it that far. Some people
*need* to have pacemakers. If all the pacemaker
companies are sued out of existence, many more people
will die. Based on that, perhaps a pacemaker company
deserves an extra level of protection in order to
keep the greater number of people alive. I don't
think the argument follows for aviation.

A certificated airplane has supposedly passed a number of tests to
certify that it is airworthy and safe to fly by a competent pilot. The
FAA goes through great pains to make sure that the airplane meets those
requirements. As long as the manufacturer meets the requirements
stipulated in the type certificate, the airframe has essentially been
blessed by the feds as safe. If something comes up that proves to be
unsafe, the Feds issue an AD against the airframe to correct or prevent
the unsafe condition, in some cases grounding entire fleets. The
manufacturer is not free to make changes to the certified design without
getting an approval on the changes from the Feds, which usually involves
more testing.

If the medical community can get a pass on the liability of its products
under the claim that the government approved the device or drug, then
any other industry who's products are regulated to the point where they
cannot be used without the Fed's blessing should be allowed the same
degree of liability protection. The fact is most aircraft accidents are
caused by pilot error, not by manufacturing or design defects, yet when
it happens, the manufacturers are invariably sued, and usually lose
because uninformed jurors second guess the engineering that went into
the design of the airframe and components. Never mind those designs
require rigorous testing before they get approved by the government.

This is virtually the same situation as the one this decision shields
the medical device and drug manufacturers from. The bit about people
needing a medical device is immaterial to my statement. There are
legitimate needs to fly as well.

Anyway, I think this could be used as a camel's nose under the tent if
played right.