FREEMAN V. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE, INC. 618 N.W.2d 827 (2000) CASE BRIEF

FREEMAN V. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE, INC.

618 N.W.2d 827 (2000)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Freeman (P) appealed the dismissal of his case against Hoffman (D) for P's failure to state a cause of action against D for alleged injuries from P's plaintiff's use of Accutane.

FACTS: P went for treatment of chronic acne. After examination, her physician prescribed 20 milligrams daily of Accutane. D is the designer, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, fabricator, and supplier of Accutane. As a result of taking the Accutane, P claims she developed ulcerative colitis, inflammatory polyarthritis, nodular episcleritis OS, and optic nerve head drusen. P alleged that the Accutane she took was defective, misbranded, and mislabeled. She alleged that D knew that Accutane was dangerous and/or posed significant health risks and that despite this knowledge, D misled the medical community and their patients with incomplete information regarding its safety by failing to disclose the side effects that P suffered. She also alleged that D made misrepresentations regarding the safety and effectiveness of Accutane in order to induce medical providers to select Accutane instead of other available drug options. P and her physician relied upon these misrepresentations. P alleged seven theories of recovery, the details of which are set out further in the analysis sections of this opinion: (1) strict liability on the bases that D distributed Accutane when it was not fit for its intended purpose and when the inherent risks outweighed the benefits of its use, and because it was unreasonably dangerous; (2) negligence on the bases that D performed negligent and careless research, testing, design, manufacture, and inspection of the product and failed to give adequate warnings of the risks of its use; (3) misrepresentation on the basis that Hoffman falsely represented to Freeman that Accutane was safe to use, thus inducing her to use the product; (4) failure to warn; (5) breach of implied warranty; (6) breach of express warranty; and (7) fear of future product failure on the basis that the actions of D caused P to suffer mental distress and anxiety. The court dismissed P's suit and P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner