Legal Opinion

Ethel Fay Long v. Rite Aid Corp

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 25, 2019No. 77695-9Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE ETHEL FAY LONG and MELVIN ) LEROY LONG, husband and wife, ) No. 77695-9-I ) Appellants, v. ) RITE AID HEADQUARTERS CORP. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION and RITE AID CORP., ) ) FILED: March 25, 2019 Respondents. VERELLEN, J. —When a physician prescribes medication for their patient, it is the physician—a learned intermediary—and not the pharmacist who has the duty to advise the patient of potential adverse effects. Because Rite Aid had neither a general common law nor a statutory duty to warn Ethel Long about the potential adverse side…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Jones v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Smith v. Safeco InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2003

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API