Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton
Texas Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Green
Under the learned intermediary doctrine, the manufacturer of a pharmaceutical product satisfies its duty to warn the end user of its product’s potential risks by providing an adequate warning to a “learned intermediary,” who then assumes the duty to pass on the necessary warnings to the end user. See, e.g., Gravis v. Parke-Davis & Co., 502 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In this case, we consider the applicability of the learned intermediary doctrine to a patient’s claims against a prescription drug manufacturer, whose product allegedly caused a serious…
2Cases cited83 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Beale v. HardyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
- Bradford v. VentoTexas Supreme Court · 2001
- Diversicare General Partner, Inc. v. RubioTexas Supreme Court · 2005
- Torrington Co. v. StutzmanTexas Supreme Court · 2001
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Christopher v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (In Re Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Liab. Litig.)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
- In re Zimmer, Nexgen Knee Implant Prods. Liab. Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
- Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical CorporationArizona Supreme Court · 2016
- DiBartolo v. Abbott LaboratoriesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Huskey v. Ethicon, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2014
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.