OT: Article-- Lilly does not owe a duty to the world

[Guest guest]

Was anyone under the vague impression that if unstated side effects

effected someone in such a way that it cost you a loved one (or a

limb) that you would be able to sue the drug company? Guess again.

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/lilly-does-not-owe-a-duty-to-the-

world/

Lilly Does Not `Owe A Duty To The World'

7 Comments

By Ed Silverman // September 5th, 2008 // 1:37 pm

At about 11 am on Februray 25, 2002, Ellen Crews suffered an adverse

reaction to a Lilly diabetes medication while driving her Ford Escort

on the Capitol Beltway in land. She began driving erratically and

rear-ended a Chevrolet Impala driven by former Prince 's County

Councilman Isaac " Ike " Gourdine, according to The land Daily

Record.

Gourdine, 56, lost control of his car and crashed into the back of an

illegally parked tractor trailer, and died from a head injury while

his legislative aide, Marilynn Bland, suffered minor injuries,

according to the paper. Gourdine subsequently filed a lawsuit

against the drugmaker, arguing that Lilly failed to warn Crews, a

type-1 diabetic taking a combination of drugs manufactured by Lilly,

that increased rates of hypoglycemia could occur between 6 am and

noon, the paper writes.

The issue at hand, of course, is whether a drugmaker owes a duty to a

third party who does not ingest the drugs. The state court of appeals

ruled the answer is no. " To impose the requested duty from Lilly to

Mr. Gourdine would expand traditional torts concepts beyond

manageable bounds…, " Judge Lynne Battaglia wrote for the

court. " Essentially, Lilly would owe a duty to the world. "

The court agreed that Lilly did not owe a duty of care to Gourdine

based on foreseeability that such an accident could occur. There " may

be circumstances where foreseeability alone may give rise to

liability to a third party because of policy reasons, " the court

wrote, but " this is not the case, " according to the paper.