Facts
- Thomas Allison, age 17 months, received Merck’s MMR II (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine administered by the Clark County Health District.
- The Allisons alleged the vaccine caused Thomas to develop encephalitis, resulting in permanent injuries including blindness, deafness, cognitive impairment, and spastic contractures.
- Thomas asserted strict products liability claims against Merck as manufacturer.
- Jo Ann Allison asserted failure-to-warn claims related to the vaccine’s risks.
- Merck argued Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment k (unavoidably unsafe products) barred strict liability for vaccines/prescription drugs and raised policy concerns about deterring vaccine development.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Merck and the Health District; the Allisons appealed.
Issues
- Whether comment k categorically bars strict products liability claims against a vaccine manufacturer, or whether strict liability may proceed upon proof of defect and causation.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on claims that Merck failed to provide adequate warnings regarding vaccine risks.
- Whether a county health district administering a vaccine is a seller/manufacturer subject to strict products liability.
Decision
- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Merck and remanded for trial on Thomas’s strict liability claim and Thomas’s and Ms. Allison’s failure-to-warn claims.
- The court held Merck was not categorically immune from strict liability under comment k; strict liability could apply if plaintiffs proved defect and causation.
- The court held the failure-to-warn claims against Merck presented triable factual issues.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the Clark County Health District, concluding it was not a seller or manufacturer in the chain of distribution for strict products liability purposes.
Legal Principles
- In Nevada strict products liability, a plaintiff must show injury caused by a defect in the product, and that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s hands.
- A product is defective if it is dangerous because it fails to perform as reasonably expected in light of its nature and intended function.
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment k does not provide blanket immunity for prescription drugs or vaccines; its application depends on product-specific facts, including proper preparation and the adequacy of warnings.
- Warning adequacy and causation in failure-to-warn claims commonly present fact questions not suitable for resolution on summary judgment when disputed.
- Strict products liability is limited to entities in the business of selling or distributing the product; a public health provider administering immunizations is not necessarily a seller/manufacturer for strict liability purposes.
Conclusion
The court allowed strict liability and failure-to-warn claims against the vaccine manufacturer to proceed because comment k did not bar them as a matter of law and factual disputes remained, while it barred strict liability against the public health district because it was not a seller or manufacturer in the product’s distribution chain.