Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Relearning the Learned Intermediary Doctrine
In typical product liability cases, the manufacturer owes a duty to the eventual consumer to warn of any risks associated with the product. However, in the context of prescription drug cases, courts have recognized that the prescribing doctors, and not their patients, are in the best position to weigh the risks and benefits of a given drug for a particular patient. Accordingly, courts in nearly every state have embraced some form of the “learned intermediary doctrine,” which provides that a prescription drug manufacturer satisfies its duty to warn so long as it provides an adequate warning of the drug's potential risks to the plaintiff's prescribing doctor.
If the warning is adequate, or even if the doctor was somehow otherwise aware of the risk, then the manufacturer will not be liable, either because it satisfied its duty to warn or because there can be no proximate causation of the plaintiff's injury if the doctor already knew of the risk but prescribed the drug anyway.
This has made the deposition of the prescribing doctor a key event in these litigations. Many courts have granted motions for summary judgment in favor of prescription drug manufacturers when the record established that the prescribing doctor was aware of the risk associated with the drug. See, e.g., McClamrock v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24539, at *2 (2nd Cir. Nov. 29, 2012) (“Because [the plaintiff] would have the burden of establishing proximate cause at trial, his failure to offer any evidence that [his prescriber] was unaware that diabetes was a risk associated with [the drug] when he prescribed it warranted granting summary judgment in favor of [the defendant]“); Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6710, *21 (5th Cir. March 30, 2009) (affirming ruling granting summary judgment where “[the plaintiff] presented no evidence to suggest that [the doctor] would have changed either his decision to prescribe [the drug] or his risk-benefit analysis had he received some alternative warning.”).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.