I'm a lawyer and I am currently defending a major lead paint company in a products liability suit. Your post here is nothing short of ignorant and ill-informed. The commerce clause is effective only for acts of Congress, and the Chevron case and its progeny suggest that administrative rules interpreting congressional legislation do not, in fact, preempt state tort law. Same with the supremacy clause - only for acts of congress that have a clear intent to supplant state law.

Secondly, the dormant commerce clause (a construct of the Supreme Court that bears logical relation to the intent of the commerce clause) has never been interpreted to supplant state common law tort claims. The dormant commerce clause applies to state acts that directly infringe on federal legislation governing interstate commerce.

Lastly, as a political independent, I can say that a conservative is a conservative until a tort happens to him. If a liberal is a liberal until a crime happens to him, I've seen Rush Limbaugh listeners aplenty ready to file a lawsuit against their neighbor for a tree haning over their fence, or against John Deere for a harvester that malfunctions and sucks their arm into a mechanical grain separator. Want a world without plaintiff's lawyers, take a look at China and ask yourself if you'd like to live there.

The company is trying to overturn a $6.8 million award given to a woman whose arm had to be amputated after a negligent doctor inadvertently injected the company's anti-nausea medication into an artery.

Why in the world would the manufacturer of the medicine be liable for anything in this case?

If they are, couldn't one sue Ford if someone blows through a stop sign and hits your car?

As the resident lawyer on this thread, I suppose I'll explain:

Drugs have dyes, chemicals added for odor, and different shaped bottles to help medical professionals tell them apart during the heat of an operation. They also have warnings, but most doctors should have enough knowledge without the warnings.

In this case (although I haven't read the briefs yet), my guess is that the allegations against the drug company are that the warnings did not adequately alert personnel to the fact that the drug is highly toxic intravenously. Or, more probably, the allegation is that the dyes and bottle shape were too similar to a safe drug. Again, the heat of surgery makes these things arguably important. I would consider it a very defensible case against the drug company, however.

Keep in mind that a nurse probably injected the patient, but the doctor is held responsible in some states.

And, yes, you can sue Ford if a car blows through a stopsign and broadsides you..... if Ford's negligent design or construction of that car was a material contributory causitive factor in the other driver failing to stop. e.g., brake pads improperly designed, etc.