Temple, 851 F.2d 1269, 1273 n. 7 (11th Cir.1988)(declining to hold that products liability or mass accident suit could never be proper subject of class action but recognizing “that the prerequisites of commonality and typicality will normally be hard to satisfy”). D. As we observed in In re Parker, “[djeeisions that meet part four are particularly prone to mandamus review.” 49 F.3d at 211. Thus we are less concerned that the order in this case raise “issues of first impression,” or “new and important problems.” However, as petitioners point out, this court has never considered directly the application of Rule 23 in a drug or medical device product liability/personal injury case. Because the stakes are so high in class actions, see Livesay, 437 U.S. at 470, 476, 98 S.Ct. at 2458, 2462 (<HOLDING>); Rhone-Poulenc 51 F.3d 1298 (sheer magnitude
recognizing that refusal to certify class may induce plaintiff to abandon his individual claim similarly grant may so increase defendants potential damages liability and litigation costs that he might decide to settle despite valid defense holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper holding that the court cannot examine the underlying merits of the claims in determining whether to certify a class holding that where both liability and damages depend on individual factual determinations claims may only be determined on individual basis