Dooley v. Everett

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “once a duty is established, the scope of . . . the standard of care is a question of fact”
• stating that it is “axiomatic” for a negligence claim to require duty, breach, causation, and damages and acknowledging that “[p]rofessionals are judged according to the standard of care required by their profession”
• refusing to apply learned intermediary doctrine, court held that whether pharmacist has duty to warn customer of potential drug interaction is issue of fact preventing summary judgment
• defining negligence as “doing what a reasonable and prudent person would not do under the given circumstances.”
• whether pharmacist owed duty to warn customer was fact question precluding summary judgment
• whether pharmacist owed duty to warn customer was fact question precluding summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).