Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortliabilityappealtrialstrict liability
contracttortliabilitytrialstrict liabilityappellantappellee

Related Cases

Welke v. Kuzilla, 144 Mich.App. 245, 375 N.W.2d 403
View Case »
Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1994 WL 728202
View Case »
Rosen v. Montgomery Surgical Center, 825 So.2d 735
View Case »
Dias v. Brigham Medical Associates, Inc., 438 Mass. 317, 780 N.E.2d 447
View Case »
Chumbler v. McClure, 505 F.2d 489
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 399 F.2d 121

Facts

Glynn Richard Davis received the Type III Sabin polio vaccine at a mass immunization clinic in West Yellowstone, Montana, in March 1963. He was in good health at the time but developed paralysis and other symptoms of polio within thirty days of vaccination. The vaccine was licensed for sale only as a prescription drug and was administered at community clinics without adequate warnings about the risks involved. The manufacturer, Wyeth Laboratories, had a role in organizing the clinics but failed to ensure that consumers were informed of the potential dangers of the vaccine.

Appellant Glynn Richard Davis took appellee's Type III polio vaccine at a mass immunization clinic conducted in West Yellowstone, Montana, in March, 1963. At that time he was thirty-nine years old, in good health, and engaged in the lumber business. Within thirty days he evidenced paralysis and other symptoms of polio, and has remained paralyzed from the waist down ever since.

Issue

Whether Wyeth Laboratories should be held to strict tort liability for the polio contracted by Davis after taking the vaccine, given the manufacturer's duty to warn consumers of the associated risks.

This case presents the question whether appellee Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., a manufacturer of Sabin polio vaccine, should be held to strict tort liability to one who took the drug and contracted polio as a result.

Rule

A manufacturer can be held strictly liable if its product is found to be unreasonably dangerous due to a failure to warn consumers of known risks, even if the product was manufactured with care.

The clearest statement of the law as it exists today is in our view that set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). Relevant to our case are § 402A and comments j and k.

Analysis

The court determined that Wyeth Laboratories had a duty to warn consumers about the risks associated with the Type III Sabin vaccine, especially after the Surgeon General's reports indicated a potential risk of polio from the vaccine. The failure to provide adequate warnings rendered the vaccine unfit for use, thus establishing grounds for strict liability. The court emphasized that the risks should have been disclosed to consumers at the clinics, as the vaccine was administered without individualized medical assessments.

We conclude that the facts of this case imposed on the manufacturer a duty to warn the consumer (or make adequate provision for his being warned) as to the risks involved, and that failure to meet this duty rendered the drug unfit in the sense that it was thereby rendered unreasonably dangerous.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of Wyeth Laboratories and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the jury should have been instructed on the issue of strict liability due to the manufacturer's failure to warn.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Who won?

Glynn Richard Davis prevailed in the appeal, as the court found that Wyeth Laboratories failed to meet its duty to warn consumers about the risks of the vaccine, which led to the reversal of the initial judgment.

Appellant stated claims founded on (1) negligent manufacture, (2) failure to warn of known dangers, (3) strict liability in tort and (4) breach of an implied warranty of fitness.

You must be