About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

82 Ky. L.J. 575 (1993-1994)
Medical Implant Litigation and Failure to Warn: A New Extension for the Learned Intermediary Rule

handle is hein.journals/kentlj82 and id is 585 raw text is: NOTES Medical Implant Litigation and Failure to Warn: A New Extension for the Learned Intermediary Rule? INTRODUCTON Under the learned intermediary rule, the manufacturer of a prescription drug satisfies its duty to warn by warning the prescribing physician of the dangers of using the drug. The manufacturer is not required to warn the ultimate user of the drug-the patient-if adequate warning is given to the treating physician.1 The learned intermediary rule thus represents an exception to the general rule that the mantfcturer of a dangerous product has a duty to warn the ultimate consumer of the products dangers Courts have articulated a number of rationales for the learned intermediary rule, and the rule has gained virtually universal acceptance in prescription drug cases 'See, e.g., Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Cornish, 370 F.2d 82, 85 (8th Cir. 1966) (holding that drug manufacturer that adequately warns physician of drug's dangerous qualities satisfies its duty to warn and is not required to warn public directly). Even if the manufacturer fails to warn or inadequately warns the physician, the manufacturer might still escape liability for failure to warn the drug user if the physician would not have heeded an adequate warning, see Bravinan v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 984 F.2d 71, 75 (2d Cir. 1993) (holding it to be up to the rier of fact to decide ifthe physician would or would not have warned the patient had he known of the danger), or if the physician was independently aware of the dangers, see Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 976 F.2d 77, 80 (1st Cir. 1992) (holding that a doctor's admission that he would not warn patients of the danger was an intervening-superseding cause of the injuries sustained by the patient); Odom v. G.D. Searle & Co., 979 F.2d 1001, 1003 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating that a manufacturer's inadequate warning cannot be said to have caused the injury if the physician already knew of the risk). 2 See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 388(c) (1965); infra sources cited note 56. 3 See infra notes 42-70 and accompanying text.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most