Minnesota Law Review

Note, Immunity for Vaccine Manufacturers: The Vaccine Act and Preemption of Design Defect Claims

Vaccines are one of the most important medical advancements in history. Childhood immunization efforts are widely promoted by state and federal governments as well as medical professionals and institutions. While routine pediatric vaccines prevent many lethal and debilitating diseases, they also carry the potential to cause injury. Predictably, the occurrence of these injuries often leads to litigation against the vaccine manufacturers. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 sought to address the issues of vaccine safety, compensation for vaccine-related injuries, and liability protection for vaccine manufacturers. The Act expressly preempts design defect claims for “unavoidable” side effects. Two courts have recently clashed in their interpretations of this language—the Georgia Supreme Court held that the language requires a case-by-case determination that the injury or side effect was unavoidable, while the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that it preempts all design defect claims. After granting a writ of certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court is now poised to determine the preemptive scope of the Vaccine Act.

The Note argues that the holdings of both courts are incorrect. While the Georgia Supreme Court correctly asserts that the Vaccine Act requires some case-by-case analysis, it fails to address who should undertake this analysis and whether it has already been performed with respect to routine childhood vaccines. Congress, and the institutions and agencies through which it operates, is the appropriate body for determining whether the benefits of particular vaccines justify their risks. In encouraging and, in some cases, mandating particular childhood vaccines, Congress has already made these determinations, rendering these vaccines “unavoidably unsafe” and shielding their manufactures from design defect claims. The federal government leads the way in national vaccine policy and must continue to do so to ensure the stability and supply of the vaccine market. Allowing such design defect claims could cripple the nation’s immunization programs and threaten the health and life of every American.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]