Pittman v. Upjohn Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that physician’s duty to warn regarding dangers of prescribed drug did not extend to patient’s adult grandson under the facts of the case
• holding that, where a patient’s adult grandson took some of the patient’s diabetes medication and suffered a severe reaction, injury was not reasonably foreseeable
• holding that physician did not owe a duty of care to non-patient where it was not reasonably foreseeable that non-patient would ingest medicine prescribed for the physician’s patient
• suggesting that because a pharmacy has a duty to do more than fill a customer’s prescription correctly, a pharmacy may owe a duty to a noncustomer
• noting that drug companies must give physicians “a full and complete disclosure of the potential adverse reactions to the drug”
• indicating that an adequate warning to learned intermediaries must convey, inter alia, a warning with the degree of intensity required by the nature of the risk

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).