Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Appeals Court Upholds $10 Million Motrin Verdict
Pennsylvania's Superior Court has upheld a $10 million verdict against pharmaceuticals manufacturer McNeil-PPC compensating a child who was injured after taking Children's Motrin. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury that heard the case concluded that McNeil-PPC, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, failed to adequately warn the parents of the then-three-year-old girl of the risks of giving their child the over-the-counter product, resulting in damage to her reproductive system, permanent disfigurement of her skin and loss of sight in her left eye. On appeal, the pharmaceuticals company argued that negligence had not been proven because the Children's Motrin warning label contained all the cautionary information required of and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ' and this information did not included warnings about rashes, blisters or skin reddening. Relying on Daniel v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Judge Kate Ford Elliott wrote that the appellants could not shield themselves behind a federal preemption argument, but must take responsibility for providing adequate warning information on its product's label. In addition, although the injured child's mother testified that she would have relied on the girl's doctor's recommendation that she give Children's Motrin even if the label had warned of blisters or rashes, she also testified that she would have discontinued its use once her child developed these symptoms if such warnings had existed. “Therefore,” Judge Ford Elliott wrote, the manufacturer's argument that failure-to-warn did not cause the child harm must fail, as “there was testimony that an adequate warning would have prevented [the child] from receiving the last four or five doses of Children's Motrin.” This, along with expert testimony that the child's injuries would have been fewer had she stopped taking the drug sooner, supported a finding that the company was liable.
'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?