recognizing Basel’s duty to warn consumer, but explaining “[w]hether that duty has been satisfied [under] the common law of the state . . . [is] beyond our assignment in response to this certified question”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing Basel’s duty to warn consumer, but explaining “[w]hether that duty has been satisfied [under] the common law of the state . . . [is] beyond our assignment in response to this certified question”
- recognizing Basel’s duty to warn consumer, but explaining “[wjhether that duty has been satisfied [under] the common law of the state ... [is] beyond our assignment in response to this certified question”
- adopting a general FDA regulations exception to the learned intermediary doctrine based on cases recognizing an exception for contraceptives, with little reasoning behind the extension of FDA regulations exception to non-contraceptive cases
- stating that “the law regarding such products appears at Comment k of the Restatement”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SIMMS, Justice,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion and respectfully observe that pre-emption is not an issue in this case.