California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Carlin v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 1104, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 162, 920 P.2d 1347 (Cal. 1996):
The majority's holding exposes prescription drug manufacturers to such broad liability that they may restrict or cease the development and distribution of life-sustaining and lifesaving drugs, thereby defeating a strong public [13 Cal.4th 1127] interest. As this court has observed: "[T]here is an important distinction between prescription drugs and other products such as construction machinery [citations], a lawnmower [citation], or perfume [citation], the producers of which were held strictly liable. In the latter cases, the product is used to make work easier or to provide pleasure, while in the former it may be necessary to alleviate pain and suffering or to sustain life. Moreover, unlike other important medical products (wheelchairs, for example), harm to some users from prescription drugs is unavoidable. Because of these distinctions, the broader public interest in the availability of drugs at an affordable price must be considered in deciding the appropriate standard of liability for injuries resulting from their use." (Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1063, 245 Cal.Rptr. 412, 751 P.2d 470, italics added.) This distinction between prescription drugs and other products, the legal significance of which the majority denies (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 169, fn. 5 of 56 Cal.Rptr.2d, p. 1353, fn. 5 of 920 P.2d), is firmly rooted in products liability law and was the basis for this court's unanimous decision in Brown v. Superior Court, supra, at pages 1063-1065, 245 Cal.Rptr. 412, 751 P.2d 470. 3
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.