Parkinson v. Guidant Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that statements made on a defendant’s website that the plaintiff became aware of post-sale could not give rise to an express warranty claim
• stating that a pharmaceutical drug company can only be liable for a “failure-to-warn” if reasonable care is not exercised to inform those taking the drug of the dangers which come with taking the drug
• stating “that, as with inadequate warnings, the only reeognized basis of liability for an improperly prepared product likewise is negligence”
• granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose claims as precluded claims under Pennsylvania law
• agreeing “with the district courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that the same considerations exempting prescription drugs from the ambit of § 402A equally apply to prescription medical devices”
• dismissing strict liability design and failure to warn claims against medical device manufacturer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).