Martin v. Hacker

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Warnings section “deals with side effects of graver consequences than the Adverse Reactions section”
• “Warnings for prescription drugs are intended for the physician.... [T]he manufacturer’s duty to caution against a drug’s side effects is fulfilled by giving adequate warning through the prescribing physician, not directly to the patient.”
• plaintiff who experienced visual blockage in eye adequately warned where package insert, PDR and patient literature regarding drag expressly stated possibility of blindness or partial visual blockage
• “[A] prescribed drug, accompanied by adequate warnings, is ‘not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.’ ”
• “Where liability is predicated on a failure to warn, New York views negligence and strict liability claims as equivalent.”
• drug manufacturer “established that the [drug] package insert contains language which, on its face, adequately warns against the precise risk in question”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).