Demmler v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “plaintiffs must ... establish proximate causation by showing that had defendant issued a proper warning to the learned intermediary, he would have altered his behavior and the injury would have been avoided.”
• holding “plaintiffs must . . . establish proximate causation by showing that had defendant issued a proper warning to the learned intermediary, he would have altered his behavior and the injury would have been avoided.”
• where drug is available only by prescription, adequacy of warning is not to the patient or the public but to the prescribing physician
• “Generally, expert medical testimony is required to determine whether the drug manufacturer’s warning to the medical community is adequate because prescription drugs are likely to be complex medicines, esoteric in formula and varied in effect.”
• “the prescribing physician can take into account the propensities of the drug, as well as the susceptibilities of his patient” and weigh “the benefits of any medication against its potential dangers.”
• A “prescribing physician can take into account the propensities of the drug, as well as the susceptibilities of his patient” and weigh “the benefits of any medication against its potential dangers.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).