fair and just and that will meet the reasonable expectations of the parties. In this appeal, we attempt to advance that goal." Now usually, that means that the plaintiff is going to get the short end of the jurisprudential stick, but not in this case. Read on.
In McCarrell, the Court allowed an Alabama plaintiff to use N.J.'s more favorable statute of limitations rather than Alabama's, which had expired by the time of the filing of the N.J. action. N.J.'s statute, however, had a tolling provision tied to discovery and this N.J. defendant had been charged with hiding the fact that one of Accutane's side effects, inflam- matory bowel disease, was irreversible.
Following Restatement (Second) of Conflicts, the Court now confirms that N.J. has a substantial interest in "deterring manufacturers from placing dangerous products in the stream of commerce" and that inadequate warning labels "can render prescription medica- tions dangerous." It reverses and rein- states the $25 million award.
There is great language in the opinion, far too deep for our cursory discussion here. We wonder why Conflicts was never this interesting at Flatbush Law, or so easy: "When claims are timely filed by a New Jersey or another state's resident, and New Jersey has a substantial interest in the litigation, providing parity between an in-state and out-of-state citizen makes perfect sense in a system sensitive to interstate comity." Put another way by the late Judge Carol Higbee, who presided over the original McCarrell case, what interest could Alabama have in barring one of its residents from suing a N.J. drug company in a N.J. court?
That sound you hear is defense attorneys sucking wind. Left turn anyone?