Skip to main content
· 2/28/1992

Hufft v. Horowitz

Citations

  • 4 Cal. App. 4th 8
  • 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377
  • 92 Daily Journal DAR 2834
  • 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1849
  • 1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 251

How courts have described this case

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

  • analogizing implanted medical devices to prescription drugs, as opposed to products such as wheelchairs, and concluding by \draw[ing] a bright line within which the comment k test is applied to all implanted medical devices.\
  • analogizing implanted medical devices to prescription drugs, as opposed to products such as wheelchairs, and concluding by “draw[ing] a bright line within which the comment k test is applied to all implanted medical devices.”
  • “Brown does not exempt a drug manufacturer from ... liability for negligence or failure to warn of known or reasonably knowable side effects.”
  • applying the Brown exemption to manufacturer of penile prostheses
  • “We hold that a manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries caused by an implanted prescription medical product which has been (1) properly made and (2) distributed with information regarding risks and dangers of which the manufacturer knew or should have known at the time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sonenshine

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.