# Edwards v. Basel Pharmaceuticals

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · March 4, 1997 · 68 O.B.A.J. 794

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9608347

## Case

- **Full name:** Alpha EDWARDS, Personal Representative of the Estate of John T. Edwards, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BASEL PHARMACEUTICALS, a DIVISION OF CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 4, 1997
- **Citations:** 68 O.B.A.J. 794; 933 P.2d 298; 57 A.L.R. 5th 793; 1997 OK 22; 1997 Okla. LEXIS 20; 1997 WL 87944
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Simms
- **Judges:** Summers, Kauger, Hodges, Lavender, Simms, Hargrave, Opala, Watt
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9608347

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- stating that “the law regarding such products appears at Comment k of the Restatement”

## Opinion text

SIMMS, Justice,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion and respectfully observe that pre-emption is not an issue in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9608347. Public record. Not legal advice.