Our Courts Continue to Allow Foreign Manufacturers to Escape Justice

Yesterday, I read a blog post by Mobile, Alabama attorney Edwin Lamberth.  Edwin's blog is always a great source of commentary.  Edwin's recent post discusses an important issue - foreign companies not being held accountable for the injuries and deaths caused by their defective and dangerous products.

This is a subject I've previously addressed as well.  In my prior posts, I discussed the need for Congress to pass legislation protecting the public from needless injuries by holding these manufacturers accountable.  Last year, such legislation was introduced before Congress.  That proposed legislation would not only protect consumers but would also level the playing field for manufacturers in the U.S. who are going the extra mile to try and produce safe products.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed into the issue - but with two bad decisions that deny justice to the victims of defective and dangerous products produced by foreign companies for distribution in the United States.  Edwin's post presents a great analysis and commentary on these new decisions.  Since his post captures my thoughts on the issue as well, I would just urge others to read it.  I am very troubled by these recent Court decisions further closing the doors of justice to families dealing with a severe personal injury or the death of a loved one due to a dangerous and defective product.  I certainly hope this is not the end of this issue.  Perhaps now Congress will finally act in the interests of the public and business by passing legislation to hold those accountable who ship defective products to us.

Congress Holds Hearings On The "Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act"

Previously, I wrote about legislation introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives to protect American consumers from dangerous and defective imported products.  The statistics are very troubling.  In 2009, 83% of the recalls announced by The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) were from foreign manufacturers.  Statistics from recent prior years are similar.

Last week, a Congressional subcommittee held hearings on the proposed bill.  The hearing brief prepared by the subcommittee staff summarizes the current problems with dangerous imported products.  According to the subcommittee brief: 

 

The import of consumer products into the United States more than doubled in the decade between 1998 and 2007.  This sharp rise in imported consumer products has been accompanied by an overall increase in product recalls and a disproportionate increase in the share of product recalls involving imported products – particularly products from China.

In 2007, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced 473 recalls.  This was the highest level of recalls in ten years.3 Of those 473 recalls, 389 (82%) involved imported products.  Of the 389 recalls involving imported products, 288 (74%) involved products from China.  Among the defective imported products grabbing national attention in the past several years were: a children’s craft kit containing beads coated with a chemical similar to a date rape drug; toy trains coated with lead paint; a contaminated blood thinning drug; and drywall emitting sulfurous gases.

While the CPSC has been working to bolster its surveillance of imported products and working with foreign governments to improve compliance with U.S. safety standards, holding foreign manufacturers accountable for injuries caused by defective products that make it into the hands of American consumers remains a problem. Victims trying to sue foreign manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products face significant obstacles with respect to providing service of process (notice about the litigation required to be given to the defendant) and establishing jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers in U.S. courts.

 

According to a CPSC representative at the hearing, by 2008 almost 80% of the toys purchased in the United States were imported from China or Hong Kong.  The fact that the vast majority of toys we place in the hands of our children are imported certainly makes this an important issue

Currently, injured victims trying to sue a foreign manufacturer face substantial hurdles simply providing the required service of process to the foreign defendant.  The Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, provides a very time consuming method requiring all legal documents to first be translated into the foreign manufacturer's native language and then provided to a governmental authority for actual attempts at service.  Even if the injured victim eventually has the foreign manufacturer served, the manufacturer will often challenge the suit by claiming the U.S. Court does not have personal jurisdiction over it due to its lack of actual contacts in the United States.  The current rules work to greatly increase the time and expense on the innocent victims of the defective product and the judicial system as a whole.  In addition, they often serve as a means for the manufacturer to escape ultimate liability for the damages caused by its defective product.

The current legislation in the House of Representative solves these initial problems by requiring that foreign manufacturers importing products into the United States designate a registered agent in this country who is authorized to accept service of legal papers.  Registering an agent would also constitute a link establishing personal jurisdiction in the United States where the agent was located.  Similar legislation has also been introduced in the U.S. Senate.

The current legislation does not cure the problem of defective products flooding our market.  We certainly need to take steps that will enforce important safety standards for all products, including those imported to the United States.  Enforcing safety standards protects our citizens from needless injury and damage.  However, this legislation will prevent foreign manufacturers from escaping accountability simply based on service of process and jurisdictional issues.  As a result, it is a much needed step.

 

Foreign Manufacturers Account For Most Product Recalls

A study by The American Association for Justice shows that eighty-three percent (83%) of the recalls announced by The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 2009 were from foreign manufacturers.  The results for 2008 were similar.  What happens when one of these defective foreign-made products injures someone?

The recent litigation concerning defective Chinese drywall highlights the problems with holding foreign manufacturers accountable for the injuries their products inflict upon the public.  Millions of tons of defective Chinese drywall were imported into the United States for use in the construction of homes.  After these homes were built, owners began complaining that the drywall emitted corrosive and irritating fumes.  In November 2009 the CPSC issued a press statement,  after studying the issue, finding "a strong association between homes with the problem drywall and the levels of hydrogen sulfide in those homes and corrosion of metals in those homes."  The defective drywall was emitting hydrogen sulfide gas which not only created an irritating smell, but also, caused parts of the home to corrode.  The CPSC is continuing to study the health issues which may also be associated with the defective drywall.

Last week, a Federal Judge in Louisiana assessed $2.6 million in damages against a Chinese state-owned manufacturer of this defective drywall on behalf of seven Virginia families.  These damages relate only to the costs necessary to remediate the problem and fix the damaged homes of these plaintiffs, not the potential health risks.  Many other damaged homeowners have also filed claims which remain pending.

The problem arises in the enforcement of the Court's judgment.  Will the foreign manufacturer truly be held accountable or is this a judgment that will never be collected?  The Wall Street Journal published a great article discussing the case and its history.  In this litigation, the Chinese manufacturer never even answered the lawsuit.  While the Court's ruling on the initial drywall claim is a positive step, it remains unclear as to whether the foreign drywall manufacturer that caused this harm will ultimately pay for the damages it created.

Foreign manufacturers are often able to avoid their liability because of difficulties obtaining legal service of the claim on the company in its home country, issues related to whether the U.S. Court has jurisdiction over the manufacturer, and then problems collecting any eventual judgment.  It is important to remember that the damages caused by a defective product will be borne by someone.  If the foreign manufacturer avoids its responsibility, then the innocent consumer, our government, or a domestic company that distributed the product, will ultimately (and unfortunately) bear the loss.

In February, several members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation that would make it easier to hold foreign manufacturers accountable for their defective products.  The American Association for Justice issued a press release detailing some of the problems under current law as well as solutions presented by the proposed legislation.  Among other things, the proposed legislation would require foreign corporations to have an "agent" in the United States to accept service of process for civil and regulatory claims.  It would also require the manufacturer to consent to jurisdiction in our courts.  This is much needed legislation that will hopefully protect consumers in the future.