Legal Opinion

Ramirez v. Plough, Inc.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1993No. S029777PublishedCited by 77 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KENNARD, J.

We granted review in this case to determine whether a manufacturer of nonprescription drugs may incur tort liability for distributing its products with warnings in English only. Recognizing the importance of uniformity and predictability in this sensitive area of the law, we conclude that the rule for tort liability should conform to state and federal statutory and administrative law. Because both state and federal law now require warnings in English but not in any other language, we further conclude that a manufacturer may not be held liable in tort for failing to label a…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Alarid v. VanierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Pool v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Schwartz v. Helms Bakery LimitedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by77 opinions

  1. Lugtu v. California Highway PatrolCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Alcaraz v. VeceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Distefano v. ForesterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  5. Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011

72 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