Sterling Drug, Inc., a Corporation v. Irene M. Yarrow

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the duties imposed by §§ 388 and 402 A of the Restatement are the same regardless of characterization, because the manufacturer must give a warning that is reasonable under the circumstances
• trial court properly concluded any failure of plaintiff’s physician to learn of warnings from source other than drug company did not relieve company of liability
• “Dear Doctor” letter was inadequate; failure of the company to use its “detail men” to relay the warning was one of the inadequacies in the warning
• doctor's failure to learn of risk from other sources doesn't relieve defendant of liability, and it is foreseeable that doctors do not read all of the literature mailed to them
• doctor's failure to learn of risk from other sources doesn't relieve defendant of liability, and it is foreseeable that doctors do not read all of the literature mailed to them
• 80% blind patient permitted to recover when manufacturer’s warning in 1958 was simply that Aralen had produced “visual disturbances” and in 1963 that it caused “certain ocular complications” and so advised doctor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).