Machin v. Walgreen Co.

Citation835 So.2d 284
Decision Date27 November 2002
Docket NumberNo. 3D01-3432.,3D01-3432.
PartiesIris MACHIN, etc., Appellant, v. WALGREEN CO. a foreign corporation, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Friedman & Friedman; Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami, for appellant.

Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson and Kenneth L. Valentini and Jenessa M. Billone, for appellee.

Before COPE, FLETCHER and LEVY, JJ.

Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc and Certification Denied January 31, 2003.

FLETCHER, Judge.

Iris Machin, on behalf of her daughter Melanie, has appealed a final judgment, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the assessment of 45% comparative negligence on part of Machin. We affirm the final judgment.

Machin took her 3-month-old daughter to her pediatrician for treatment of a mouth ailment. The pediatrician diagnosed Melanie as having thrush, a common children's yeast infection, for which she prescribed Nystatin, an antifungal oral suspension. Machin took the prescription to a Walgreen pharmacy to be filled. The Walgreen pharmacist incorrectly dispensed Triotann, the generic substitute not for Nystatin, but for the antihistamine-decongestant Rynatan. Along with the Triotann dispensed to Machin, the Walgreen's pharmacist provided Machin with a data sheet advising that she was receiving Triotann and that it is a generic substitute for Rynatan. Nowhere on the data sheet (or the medicine container) did there appear the name Nystatin.

Machin gave the erroneously dispensed medicine to her daughter without first assuring—by reading the data sheet or having it read for her1—that the actually dispensed medicine was the one her pediatrician prescribed. Melanie stopped eating and developed sleep problems. The thrush worsened. When this was reported to the pediatrician she discovered that the Walgreen pharmacist had dispensed the wrong medication. Removed from the wrong medication and properly treated, Melanie's thrush infection disappeared quickly, but she continued to experience a lack of appetite and sleeping disorders for months thereafter.

At trial Walgreen contended that Machin was negligent by paying no attention to the data sheet, an examination of which would have quickly informed Machin that the prescription was not what the doctor ordered. Machin testified that she trusted her pediatrician and the pharmacy and therefore had no duty to do anything to assure that she was feeding her child the correct medicine. The jury found Machin comparatively negligent to the extent of 45% fault for her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ramos v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:15-cv-904-J-34PDB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • April 24, 2018
    ...upon parents the responsibility to supervise and protect their children who are too young to care for themselves. Machin v. Walgreen Co., 835 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Here, the legal responsibility for the care of the youngest of Ramos's five children, Nathan Cook, nineteen months old ......
  • Ramos v. State, 1D11–4504.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 14, 2012
    ...upon parents the responsibility to supervise and protect their children who are too young to care for themselves. Machin v. Walgreen Co., 835 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Here, the legal responsibility for the care of the youngest of Ramos's five children, Nathan Cook, nineteen months old ......
  • ADJIMAN v. ADJIMAN, 3D03-570.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 21, 2004
    ...to do so arose both from the common law, see Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1984); Machin v. Walgreen, 835 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Dellapenta v. Dellapenta, 838 P.2d 1153 (Wyo.1992) and by statute, see § 316.614, Fla. Stat. (1997)("(4) It is unlawful......
  • ARCHBISHOP CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL v. Maynoldi, 3D08-1648.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 14, 2010
    ...silent. Parents and guardians are primarily responsible for the supervision of their minor children, of course. Machin v. Walgreen Co., 835 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ("parents have a constant and continuous duty as ordinary, prudent persons to watch over, supervise, and protect thei......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT