[Mb-civic] Taking Vioxx -- for Plenty - Michael Kinsley - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Taking Vioxx -- for Plenty

By Michael Kinsley
Sunday, August 28, 2005; Page B07

Litigators are circling like alligators around the quivering drug 
company Merck. Estimates of what Merck may have to pay people who used 
its pain pill, Vioxx, rise every day. Fifty billion dollars is the 
highest bid so far. Last week, in the first case to come to trial, a 
Texas jury awarded Carol Ernst $253 million over the death of her 
husband. They say she's likely to get a mere tenth of that. But there 
are nearly 5,000 Vioxx lawsuits. Just type "Vioxx" into your favorite 
search engine to see why that number may rise to 20,000.

Merck has set aside $675 million just to cover its legal expenses. But 
the lawyers collect from both sides. If Carol Ernst gets $25 million, 
about $8 million of that -- the traditional one-third -- will go to her 
lawyer, Mark Lanier. Lanier says that after he pays off the law firm 
that turned the case over to him, plus other expenses, he'll be "lucky 
to get 10 percent." Shucks.


You may be under the impression that Merck did something terribly wrong 
in putting Vioxx on the market. But the Vioxx cases don't generally 
claim that. Instead, they are based on the last refuge of the tort 
lawyer: the "duty to warn." Any product carries some risk. If you slice 
up a beach ball, sauté it, and eat it, the consequences could be dire. 
But even the world's greatest lawyer would hesitate to argue that this 
is the fault of the beach ball manufacturer. That doesn't mean the 
lawyer won't take your case. He or she will take it and argue that the 
manufacturer should have warned purchasers that beach balls are not 
edible, cooked or raw.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/26/AR2005082601489.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050828/6607cab9/attachment.htm