De Melo v. Lederle Laboratories
Citation and Court
801 F.2d 1058 (8th Cir. 1987)
Facts
A Brazilian child was permanently paralyzed after receiving an oral polio vaccine manufactured by Lederle Laboratories. The vaccine was administered in Brazil, but the child’s family sued Lederle in U.S. federal court. The question arose whether Brazilian or U.S. law should govern the products liability claim, as Brazilian law imposed a lower damages cap.
Issue
Which state or country’s law should govern a products liability claim where the injury occurred in Brazil but the manufacturer was U.S.-based.
Holding
The court applied a choice-of-law analysis weighing contacts and interests, and determined that the law of the place of injury (Brazil) applied to govern the substantive liability and damages issues.
Rule / Doctrine
In multistate tort cases, choice-of-law analysis examines the interests of each jurisdiction; the place of injury retains significant weight, particularly when the injury, the plaintiff’s domicile, and administration of the product all occurred there.
Significance
De Melo illustrates the tension between lex loci delicti and interest analysis in international products liability disputes, and the result — applying foreign law to limit a U.S. manufacturer’s liability — shows that the place-of-injury rule can disadvantage plaintiffs seeking to invoke U.S. standards.