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 only situation plaintiff posits for her contention there is a meaningful difference between negligence and failure to warn of a knowable risk theories involves an extraordinarily hypothetical possible industry-wide practice of failing to disclose an unreasonably dangerous side effect of a drug. She argues that drug manufacturers could adopt an industry-wide practice of not advising of particular side effects. This she reasons would defeat a negligence claim. No doubt, an industry-wide practice may be admissible as evidence of whether a corporation or decisionmaker of ordinary prudence would act negligently in not advising as to the dangerous side effects of a drug. (Bullis v. Security Pac. Nat. Bank (1978) 21 Cal.3d 801, 809,
Page 189
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.