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

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days