STATE V. KARL 220 W.Va. 463, 647 S.E.2d 899 (2007) CASE BRIEF

STATE V. KARL

220 W.Va. 463, 647 S.E.2d 899 (2007)

NATURE OF THE CASE: The State (ex rel drug manufacturers) asks the Court to adopt the learned intermediary doctrine as an exception to the general duty of manufacturers to warn consumers of the dangerous propensities of their products.

FACTS: Gellner was prescribed the drug Propulsid by her primary care physician, Dr. Wilson. Propulsid was manufactured and distributed by Janssen Pharmaceutica. Gellner with samples of the prescription drug, which samples had been provided to Dr. Wilson by representatives of Janssen. Gellner died suddenly on the third day after she began taking Propulsid. Gellner's estate filed a products liability/medical malpractice action against Janssen and Dr. Wilson. Janssen filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that, under the learned intermediary doctrine, it had fulfilled its duty to warn by providing warnings regarding Propulsid to Dr. Wilson. It was denied. Janssen, again relying on the learned intermediary doctrine, filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument by the Estate suggesting that Janssen had a duty to provide any warnings regarding Propulsid to Gellner personally. The circuit court denied Janssen's motion. Janssen filed a petition for writ of prohibition in this Court seeking to prohibit enforcement of the circuit court's order.

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