Lacy v. G.D. Searle & Co.
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
CHRISTIE, Chief Justice:
In this case the Court is called upon to decide whether a user of an intrauterine device (“IUD”) who has recovered a medical malpractice judgment against her physician for improperly inserting the IUD may also seek to recover additional damages in the form of punitive damages against the IUD manufacturer. The right to recover punitive damages is in the first instance dependent upon a finding of liability on the part of the manufacturer, and the Superior Court ruled that the manufacturer was not liable. We hold that the IUD manufacturer sent an adequate instruction…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
- McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Terhune v. A. H. Robins Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1978
- MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Gourdine v. CrewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
- Vitanza v. Upjohn Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Edwards v. Basel PharmaceuticalsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
- Centocor, Inc. v. HamiltonTexas Supreme Court · 2012
- In re Accutane Litig.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2018
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.