American Home Products Corp. v. Ferrari, 289 Ga. 184

Georgia Supreme Court case involving vaccine-design defect claims against manufacturers (AHP and Ferrari) with prior Ferrari I/II rulings in state court; Ferrari II held Vaccine Act did not preempt design-defect claims; U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Bruesewitz; Bruesewitz held Vaccine Act preempts all design-defect claims; Court of Appeals affirmed Ferrari I after Ferrari II but was later vacated; Justice Nahmias files a special concurrence; case remanded for proceedings consistent with Bruesewitz.
Ferrari II (Ferrari II), 284 Ga. 384, 668 S.E.2d 236 (2008) affirmed no preemption of design defect claims by Vaccine Act in context; Ferrari I reversed by later developments; Bruesewitz v. Wyeth cited as controlling on remand.
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (2011) held the Vaccine Act preempts all design-defect claims.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) discussed as precedent for statutory interpretation affecting preemption analysis.
Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction to proceed consistent with Bruesewitz.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Vaccine Act preempts design-defect claims	Ferrari argued non-preemption under Ferrari II.	AHP argued design claims fall outside preemption.	Preemption controlled; Bruesewitz governs.
Effect of Bruesewitz on Ferrari II/I holdings	Ferrari urged Ferrari II remains valid.	Bruesewitz supersedes Ferrari II.	Bruesewitz dictates preemption; Ferrari II reversed.
Disposition of Ferrari II after Bruesewitz	Remand to determine under Bruesewitz.	Remand consistent with Bruesewitz.	Case remanded with direction.

Ferrari II, 284 Ga. 384 (2008) (state preemption discussion in vaccine-design defect context)
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (2011) (Vaccine Act preempts all design-defect claims)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (statutory/safety regulation background for preemption analysis)