Milk lawsuit funding, is this a myth? How do I prove it? The answer of course lies within the pages of the landmark case Milk Vs. New York, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999. In this landmark case, the Court held that a nationwide milk processing corporation could not deny membership to anyone that wanted to join, simply because that person did not have a milk-related lawsuit. Milk is one of our nation’s most consumed beverages and a milk lawsuit could make a huge difference in people who may be affected by any negligence on the part of the milk processing corporations.
Anybody that has followed the news coverage of this case, will no doubt be familiar with the legal issues that arose from this decision. This includes an oral argument between Justice Ginsburg, and Mr. Justice Breyer, concerning whether or not a fact may be used in the analysis of damages under the law. Specifically, the issue was about whether or not the damage could be deduced from the fact that the milk beverage in question had been produced within a State, where the milk lawsuit was filed. The argument went so far as to say that a fact, that caused harm to a Class of identifiable individuals, was sufficient to allow recovery under the law. Thereafter, the parties agreed to a negotiated agreement, and the case was submitted to the lower court for review. The lower court ultimately decided in the milk company’s favor, and the plaintiff filed suit against the corporation.
So, is milk worth a refund? This is the question that many legal scholars, including myself, have asked. However, there are cases where milk may not be worth a refund. For instance, if you were to take an aspirin, would the drug company sue you because you took too much? No, they would not. Therefore, milk is not likely to be ruled into the category of drugs, medicines or medical devices that may be sued.
Second, let’s look at the damages aspect. The only way the defendant can win on this aspect of the lawsuit is if it can show that you sustained injuries due to the drinker of the milk. Therefore, the milk statute will not likely apply to this case. Note, though, that this does not rule out a case where the defendant can show that it is somehow negligence or the product manufacturer’s fault.
Third, and finally, will the milk lawsuit refund status apply to the case? The answer to this question depends on your state and country, as well as on the parties. In Canada, for example, milk is not considered a prescription drug, therefore the claim cannot be based on that basis. However, the courts have indicated that if the manufacturer of the product has taken reasonable steps to ensure that milk is safe for the general public (ie, the product has a label that states it is safe), then it may be seen as being a prescription drug, even though it is not. In other words, the manufacturers of products like Rymadol have more leeway in determining whether or not their products are safe.
Lastly, will the plaintiff be paid anything if I lose my case? The answer to this question, unfortunately, will always be no. However, if you win, you should receive some money. This is owed regardless of whether you win your original lawsuit or lose.