Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Co.
| Citation | 567 F.2d 269 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1521,76-1521 |
| Parties | Doreen CHAMBERS, Appellant, Anthony G. Chambers, Plaintiff, v. G. D. SEARLE & COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Alan M. Perlman, Silver Spring, Md., for appellant.
William P. Richmond, Chicago, Ill. (Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Ill., J. Joseph Barse, Washington, D. C., John F. Gionfriddo, Vienna, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges, and FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff sued G. D. Searle & Co. (Searle) alleging that as a result of taking an oral contraceptive manufactured and sold by Searle, she had contracted cerebral thrombosis, and that Searle was liable for her injuries on the grounds of fraud, implied warranty, strict liability and negligence. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the district court granted Searle's motion for a directed verdict, ruling, in a carefully considered and thorough opinion, that plaintiff had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to permit a jury to return a verdict in her favor on any one of the four theories of liability which she asserted. She appeals, contending that the district court was in error with regard to her claim of negligence on the part of Searle which resulted in her injuries.
After hearing oral argument and considering the briefs and record, we see no error. We are not persuaded that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to determine whether Searle was negligent in not pursuing medical research to determine the possible consequences from taking the oral contraceptive, or in failing to discover those consequences, or in the adequacy of the warnings given to physicians in the light of the medical knowledge at the time, or in overpromotion of sales of the product. On the issues presented on appeal, we affirm on the opinion of the district court. Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Co., et al., 441 F.Supp. 377 (D.Md.1975).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2002-SC-0746-CL.
...Plummer v. Lederle Labs., 819 F.2d 349, 357 (2d Cir.1987); Chambers v. G.D. Searle & Co., 441 F.Supp. 377 (D.Md.1975), aff'd 567 F.2d 269 (4th Cir.1977) (per curiam). The warning may also be adequate if posted in the Physician's Desk Reference. Wolfgruber v. Co., 72 A.D.2d 59, 423 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories
...v. Yarrow, 408 F.2d 978, 992 (8th Cir.1969); Chambers v. G.D. Searle & Co., 441 F.Supp. 377, 380 (D.Md.1975), aff'd per curiam, 567 F.2d 269 (4th Cir.1977); Incollingo v. Ewing, 444 Pa. 263, 285 n. 8, 282 A.2d 206, 220 n. 8 (1971); 2 Interagency Task Force on Product Liability, U.S. Dep't o......
-
Certified Questions From U.S. Dist. Court For Eastern Dist. of Mich., Southern Div., In re, Docket Nos. 68958
...Inc., 443 F.Supp. 121, 123 (WD.Tenn.,1977); Chambers v. G.D. Searle & Co., 441 F.Supp. 377, 381 (D.Md.,1975), aff'd per curiam 567 F.2d 269 (CA 4, 1977); Pierluisi v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 440 F.Supp. 691, 694-696 (D.PR., 1977); Yarrow v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 263 F.Supp. 159, 162-163 (D......
-
MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
...Inc., 443 F.Supp. 121, 123 (W.D.Tenn.1977); Chambers v. G.D. Searle & Co., 441 F.Supp. 377, 381 (D.Md.1975), aff'd per curiam, 567 F.2d 269 (4th Cir.1977); Carmichael v. Reitz, 17 Cal.App.3d 958, 989, 95 Cal.Rptr. 381 (1971); Hamilton v. Hardy, 37 Colo.App. 375, 387, 549 P.2d 1099 (1976); M......
-
Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation
...he knew, it would have made no difference if the warnings were in the form which plaintiff contends would be adequate”), aff’d per curiam, 567 F.2d 269 (4th Cir. 1977). Massachusetts In re Neurontin Marketing & Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 3169485, at *4 (D. Mass......
-
Current Applications & Limitations on the Learned Intermediary Rule
...Goodson v. Searle Laboratories, 471 F.Supp. 546 (E.Conn. 1978); Chambers v. G.D. Searle & Co., 441 F.Supp. 377 (D.Md. 1975), aff'd, 567 F.2d 269 (4th Cir. IUDs. In Hill v. Searle Laboratories, 884 F.2d 1064 (8th Cir. 1989), the Eighth Circuit declined to apply the learned intermediary r......
-
The learned intermediary doctrine and patient package inserts: a balanced approach to preventing drug-related injury.
...physician adequate notice of possible complications); Chambers v. G.D. Searle & Co., 441 F. Supp. 377, 381 (D. Md. 1975), aff'd, 567 F.2d 269 (4th Cir. 1977) (stating that the warnings given to the prescribing physician must be adequate considering the medical and scientific knowledge a......