Legal Protection and Reasonable Treatment for
Corporations Throughout the Entire Product Life Cycle


Congratulations to PLAC member, Jim Campbell, and team at Campbell, Conroy & O'Neill, who successfully defended Ford Motor Company in a longstanding 13-year dispute in which a dealership in Maine sought to make a generous dealer incentive program a permanent part of its franchise. You can read about the litigation here.

Congratulations to PLAC member, Anita Hotchkiss of Goldberg Segalla and her daughter Kirsten, who are featured in Modern Counsel. The article “ A Family Linked by Ambition” can be accessed here.

PLAC Member, Cheryl Falvey of Crowell & Moring, was interviewed by Law360 on Safety and the Internet of Things. Click here to read the article (subscription required).

Congratulations to K2 and its Buchalter trial team for their win in US Federal Court in Madison, WI. For more details, click here.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees to hear a personal jurisdictional appeal in the Hammons v. Ethicon mass tort situated in Philadelphia. Hammons will be the Pennsylvania high court’s first opportunity to weigh in on these issues. Please click here to read the commentary by PLAC member Jim Beck.

PLAC member, Jim Beck of Reed Smith, was recently interviewed by 3D about 3D printing and the law, specifically product liability. Click here to read his interview.

For more news, click here.

Our Mission

PLAC (formerly the Product Liability Advisory Council) is a not-for-profit association of manufacturing, hardware and software-related entities, suppliers, retailers and select regulatory, litigation and appellate professionals who work to shape the common law of product liability and complex regulation, provide guidance on changing regulations, and strategically help corporations manage risk throughout the entire product lifecycle.

Featured Amicus Brief

PLAC submitted an amicus brief in support of defendant's petition for certiorari in an aviation product liability preemption case.
For over two decades, the lower courts have wrestled with the question whether the Federal Aviation Act and regulations preempt the field as to aviation safety standards. In this case, the Third Circuit rejected field preemption but suggested that the District Court consider conflict preemption instead. The trial court granted summary judgment on conflict preemption, but a different panel reversed on appeal (with one judge dissenting). In so doing, the Third Circuit disregarded the Supreme Court's recent holdings in PLIVA v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013). Both cases held that [t]he question for 'impossibility' is whether the private party could independently do under federal law what state law requires of it." In the current matter, the applicable regulations require that any alteration to the design of the airplane, the engine, or the carburetor required prior approval of the FAA. Nevertheless, the Third Circuit held that compliance with state and federal law was not impossible because defendant "has made numerous changes to the type certificate . . ., which the FAA approved in short order").

PLAC's brief in support of the defendant supported cert on both field and conflict preemption. The National Association of Manufacturers joined PLAC's brief.


Featured Events

Fall Conference: PLAC's Fall Conference will be held in Chicago, Illinois October 2-4.

Webinars: PLAC hosts a variety of webinars for members and friends of the association – to check out our event schedule, click here .