References
- Raffath. Does the pharmacist have a duty to warn patients of a prescription medication's potential risks or dangers? 1 3 Photos Law 61 (1992).
- Brushwood DB, Simonsrneier LM. Drug information for patients: duties of the manufacturer, pharmacist, physician, and hospital. J Legal Med 1986; 7: 279–340. The authors cite Fuhs v. Barber as the first case to address the issue of pharmacist liability for failure to counseL
- Fuhs v. Barber, 140 Kan. 373, 36 P.2d 962 (1934).
- Drug information for patients, p. 302.
- Dooley v. Everett, 805 S.W.2d 380 (1991).
- Tremblay v. Kimball, 107 Me 53,77 A 405 (1910), (pharmacist filled pre-scription with corrosive sublimate tablets rather than chlorodyne tablets); French Drug Co. v. Jones, 367 S.W.2d 431 (1978), (pharmacist simply misread prescrip-tion as "Estratabe," a female hormone, rather than "Ethatabe," a drug used for circulatory problems).
- Watkins v. Jacobs Pharmacy, 171 SE 830 (1933), (filling prescription with 3% gentian rather than 1% as called for in prescription which caused blindness); Johnson v. Smolinsky, 81 N.W.2d 434 (1933), (filling prescription with one ounce rather than one dram).
- Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Cornish, 370 F.2d 82 (1966).
- Makripodis v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 523 A.2d 374 (1987), at 378.
- Nichols v. Central Merchandise, Inc., 817 P.2d 1131, 1133 (1991).
- Ingram v. Hook's Drugs, Inc, 476 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. App. 1985). Pharma-cist was alleged to have failed to warn of the predictable side effects of Valium(0. The court here refused to impose a duty despite the fact that drowsiness is a rea-sonably foreseeable, if not probable, side effect of Valium use.
- 523 A.2d 374 (1987).
- 523 P.24 01 377.
- P. 378. See also Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 538 A.2.11379 (1968), a case decided by the same Pennsylvania court with virtually identical facts affirm-ing Makripodis.
- Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 584 A.2d 1383 (1991). Although plain-tiffs here did attempt to advance an argument not found per se in Makripodis, an "independent duty to warn," the majority did adopt the strict liability reasoning of Makripodis, finding in favor of the pharmacist. (Finding Comment K, Section 402A, Restatement of Torts as dispositive of the strict liability claim in Coyle, Jus-tice Papadakos, in a concurring opinion, regarded the remaining opinion as °biter dictum.)Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell. Inc., 584 A.2d 1383, 1388 (Papadakos, J., concurring).
- See id. at 1384.
- See id. at 1385.
- See id. at 1386.
- Leesley v. West, 518 N.E.2d 758 (111. App. 2 Dist. 1988).
- The prescribing physician was not part of the appeal. Leesley, p. 759.
- Leesley, p.762.
- Id.
- Note, "Tort Law-The Manufacttuer's and Pharmacist's Duty to Warn Con-sumers of Risks and Side Effects of Prescription Drugs," Leesley V. West, 13 S. ill. U. LJ. 1003, 1018 (1989).
- Laws v. Johnson, 799 S.W.2d 249 (Tenn. App. 1990).
- See id. at 250, [citing T.C.A. Section 63-10-207(1)].
- Stebbins I, Concord Wrigley Drugs, Inc.. 416 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. App. 1987).
- See also Kirk v. Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 111.2d 507, 513 N.E.24 387 (1987) (injured plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by patient).
- Stebbins, p. 385 ("The PDR indicates the existence of potential side ef-fects. The PDR does not refer to side effects occurring the following morning af-ter a patient takes the medication at bedtime according to the terms of a prescrip-tion.").
- See id. at 388.
- Hand v. Krakowski, 89 A.D.2d 551, 453 N.Y.S.2d 121 (1982).
- 453 N.Y.S.24 121, 123.
- See id. at 122.
- Id., (citing 17 N.Y.Jur., Drugs and Cosmetics, Sect. 60, p. 183).
- Riff v. Morgan Pharmacy, 508 A.2d 1247 (1986).
- See id. at 1250.
- McKee v. American Home Products Corp., 782 P.24 1045 (1989).
- McKee, p. 1048.
- McKee, at 1049.
- McKee, p. 1050, citing W. Keeton, R.. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, Sect. 96 (5th ed. 1984).
- McKee, p. 1053.
- 782 R2d 1045, 1063 (1989), (J. Dore, dissenting).
- Frye v. Medicare-Glaser Corporation, 579 N.E.2d 1255 (111. App. 5 Dist. 1991).
- See id. at 1256.
- Id.
- See id. at 1259.
- Dooley v. Everett, 805 S.W.2d 380 (Tenn. App. 1990).
- 5. A. Day, C. Masts, Duty to warn of potential drug late radians: the phar-macist's role, 14 Trial Diplomacy Journal 107 (1991) (plaintiff's trial counsel re-count the strategy used to overcome motion for summary judgment).
- Dooley v. Everett, at 383.
- See id. at 384.
- Dooley, p. 385, citing TM. Code Arm. Sect. 62-10-101(4) and (eX6).
- Dooley, p. 385, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sect. 299A (1965).
- W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, Sect. 53 (5 ed. 1984).
- W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, Sect. 53 (5 ed. 1984): 'There is little analysis of the problem of duty in the courts. Frequently it is dealt with in terms of what is called 'proximate cause,' usually with resulting confu-sion. In such cases, the question of what is 'proximate' and that of duty are funda-mentally the same: whether the interests of the plaintiff are to be protected against the particular invasion by the defendant's conduct."
- Conway v. O'Brien, 111 Fiel 611, 612 (2 Cir. 1940).