Hamilton v. Hardy

How courts have described this case

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

• saying that expert testimony is not required for medical negligence claims relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
• indicating that drug manufacturer's duty is to give adequate warnings to the medical profession
• test under strict liability is whether the failure of the manufacturer to adequately warn of the potentially dangerous propensities of its product rendered that product unreasonably dangerous
• test under strict liability is whether the failure of the manufacturer to adequately warn of the potentially dangerous propensities of its product rendered that product unreasonably dangerous
• “[The patient’s] right to recover must be resolved on an objective basis, i.e., what would a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position have decided if adequately informed?”
• \possible relationship\ between the use of oral contraceptives and thromboembolism

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).