|
|
|
Courts Apply the law of the State Where the Injury Occurred
(November 2011) By Gregory L. Arbogast, Associate
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
Williams v. Gyrus ACMI, Inc., Case No. CCB-11-323 (D. Md. June 9, 2011) |
View pdf
In Williams v. Gyrus ACMI, Inc., the Plaintiff in a medical
products liability action sought the benefit of more favorable Maryland laws
over the laws of Virginia. Judge Blake of the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, however, held that the laws of Virginia applied to the
case; and, therefore, the Court dismissed all causes of action under Maryland
law, but not the causes of action available under Virginia law.
Williams arose out of an incident in which a piece of a
medical device broke off inside Plaintiff and allegedly caused Plaintiff
injuries. On February 8, 2008, Plaintiff underwent a total vaginal hysterectomy
and cystoscopy at the Portsmouth Naval Medical Center in Virginia. During the
procedure, a portion of the Gyrus Forceps broke off and was unintentionally left
in Plaintiff’s body. Following the procedure, Plaintiff relocated to Maryland,
and she began to experience lower abdominal pressure and pain, which continued
until the object was removed. As a result, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in which
she asserted six (6) counts against the product manufacturer: (1) negligence;
(2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warrant; (4) strict
liability-design defect; (5) strict liability- manufacturing defect; and (6)
strict liability- failure to warn.
Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s strict liability
claims on the grounds that Virginia has not adopted strict liability in tort
for products liability claims. Plaintiff countered that Maryland law applies
to this action, which does permit strict products liability claims, because
Plaintiff returned to Maryland after the procedure and felt pain while in
Maryland.
After analyzing whether to apply Maryland or Virginia
law, the Court held that Virginia law applies to this case. The Court held
that Maryland applies the lex loci delicti rule in tort actions, which means
that the substantive law of the state where the wrong occurs governs the
case. Where the event giving rise to the tort occurs in more than one state,
the Court must apply the law of the state in which the injury occurred.
The Court held that the allegations of the Complaint
make it clear that Plaintiff first sustained injury from the product while
in Virginia. In a medical device case, when a foreign object is left in a
plaintiff’s body, the injury occurs at the time that the object was placed
in the body. This is because a plaintiff has a cause of action for removal
of the foreign object as soon as it is placed in the body. Therefore, even
though Plaintiff did not experience pain until she relocated to Maryland,
the injury occurred in Virginia. As such, the Court applied Virginia law and
dismissed Plaintiff’s strict liability claims.
|
|
|
Top
