Peter A. Taylor February 1, 2010 – May 21, 2010 BA621 Business Law Lesson #3 Assignment #3 This case (pages 152-153 of your text) considers whether a drug manufacturer that markets its product directly to consumers has a duty to warn consumers directly of foreseeable risks associated with the drug. The court imposed this duty on drug manufacturers, thereby changing a tradition that allowed drug manufacturers to avoid this duty by relying on doctors to tell their patients of foreseeable risks. In essence, the court rejected the "learned intermediary doctrine" because consumers are not nearly as likely to rely on learned intermediaries (e.g., doctors) in our modern consumer environment. Consider the following questions (found on page 153 of your text) in regards to Case 6-3. 1) What is particularly good about this court's reasoning in deciding that the learned intermediary doctrine is outdated? Clue: Reread the part of the decision in which the court explains how
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.
This note was uploaded on 05/06/2010 for the course BA LMA01 taught by Professor Weinstein during the Spring '10 term at Antelope Valley College.