Legal Opinion

Philbrick v. Weinberger

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 27, 1964No. Civ. 27726PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKingsley, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff, Helen Wynne Philbrick, from an adverse judgment after a trial by jury, which absolved defendants, licensed pharmacists, from all liability for injuries allegedly caused to plaintiff’s eye by reason of their negligence in filling a prescription calling for Neo Deeadron Ophthalmic Ointment, a medication intended for use in the eye.

Except for the issue of causation, the facts are not in dispute, and may be summarized as follows: On March 10, 1961, some foreign substance blew into plaintiff’s right eye which she was unable to remove. Due to the fact that plaintiff…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. George v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. Palmer v. Financial Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Ragusano v. Civic Center Hospital FoundationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Kraus v. Walt Disney Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Orr v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1982
  2. City of Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  3. Waller v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Donahue v. United Artists Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API