Parke, Davis & Co. v. Mayes, s. 46317
| Decision Date | 09 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 46317,No. 1,46318,s. 46317,1 |
| Citation | 124 Ga.App. 224,183 S.E.2d 410 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY v. Diane MAYES et al. PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY v. Thomas MAYES et al |
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Edward E. Dorsey, Stuart E. Eizenstat, Atlanta, for appellant.
Wall & Campbell, Alford Wall, Andrew W. Estes, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
These cases were brought to recover for damages arising from the illness of aplastic anemia caused by the consumption of chloromycetin, a drug manufactured by Parke, Davis & Company. Counsel are in accord that the appellant pharmaceutical company gave proper and sufficient warning to the medical profession of the potential hazards accompanying the use of the drug, chloromycetin. They also agree: that the drug was available to no one except by the prescription of a qualified medical doctor; that the dosages allegedly causing the aplastic anemia here were prescribed by a qualified doctor; and that the prescribing doctor had read all of these warnings issued by the company and knew of the possible dangers involved in the use of the drug. Under these circumstances, the company fulfilled its duty and no liability attached. Ordinarily, in the case of prescription drugs, a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient. Webb v. Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc., 85 Ga.App. 405, 69 S.E.2d 689; Stottlemire v. Cawood (D.C.D.C.) 213 F.Supp. 897; Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 9 Cir., 399 F.2d 121(6); Oppenheimer v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 7 Ohio App.2d 103, 219 N.E.2d 54; Johnson v. Upjohn Company, Mo.App., 442 S.W.2d 93(1).
There are no facts in this case which might effectuate an exception to the rule such as that applied in the Wyeth Laboratories Case supra; Love v. Wolf, 226 Cal.App.2d 378, 38 Cal.Rptr. 183; or Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories, 182 Cal.App.2d 602, 6 Cal.Rptr. 320. See Annot. 79 A.L.R.2d 290.
The judgments of the trial court denying appellant's motions for summary judgment are reversed with direction to enter judgment in each case for Parke, Davis & Company, the defendant below.
Reversed with direction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 01-15182.
...S.E.2d 680 (1984) and citing Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga.App. 481, 249 S.E.2d 286 (1978) and Parke, Davis, & Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga.App. 224, 183 S.E.2d 410 (1971)). In addition, the Georgia courts have decided that "[t]his special standard for prescription drugs is an underst......
-
Wolfgruber v. Upjohn Co.
...prescribe a drug, advising the patient of its risks and possible side effects (Magee v. Wyeth Laboratories, supra; Parke, Davis & Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga.App. 224, 183 S.E.2d 410; Kasperowitz v. Schering Corp., 70 N.J.Super. 397, 175 A.2d Thus, the manufacturer's liability, if any, is directly......
-
Catlett v. Wyeth, Inc.
...662, 314 S.E.2d 680 (1984); Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga.App. 481, 249 S.E.2d 286 (1978); Parke, Davis & Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga.App. 224, 183 S.E.2d 410 (1971)). The court noted this special standard for prescription drugs is an understandable exception to the ... general rule ......
-
Presto v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.
...680 (1984); see also Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga.App. 481, 482-483(1), 249 S.E.2d 286 (1978); Parke, Davis & Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga.App. 224, 183 S.E.2d 410 (1971). The plaintiffs mistakenly claim that Carter v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 217 Ga.App. 139, 456 S.E.2d 661 (19......
-
Product Liability - Franklin P. Brannen, Jr. and Jacob E. Daly
...Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga. App. 481, 482-83, 249 S.E.2d 286, 287-88 (1978) (en banc); Parke, Davis & Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga. App. 224, 224, 183 S.E.2d 410, 410 (1971); Webb v. Sandoz Chem. Works, 85 Ga. App. 405, 409-10, 69 S.E.2d 689, 692-93 (1952). 303. McCombs v. Synthes ......
-
Product Liability - Franklin P. Brannen, Jr. and Jacob E. Daly
...Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga. App. 481, 482-83, 249 S.E.2d 286, 287-88 (1978) (en banc); Parke, Davis & Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga. App. 224, 224, 183 S.E.2d 410, 410 (1971); Webb v. Sandoz Chem. Works, Inc., 85 Ga. App. 405, 409-10, 69 S.E.2d 689, 692-93 (1952). 260. McCombs v. Sy......