 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Prince v. B.F. Ascher Company2/17/2004
s uncontroverted. He ignored the directions on the container by breaking apart the inhaler and extracting and injecting the active ingredient. He did not use Benzedrex® for its intended purpose as a nasal inhaler but as an illegal stimulant. FDA regulations specify the particular warnings that must appear on Benzedrex® containers. Prince admits the warnings on the package clearly conveyed the contents could be poisonous if taken internally. Had Ballard heeded the product warnings and instructions for use, there is no evidentiary material that the product would have been incapable of causing him any harm. There is also no evidence demonstrating Benzedrex® was defective when it left Appellees' control. Rather, the product became dangerous only as a result of Ballard's after-purchase modifications thereto and knowing, aberrant misuse thereof. Summary judgment was thus properly granted on the products liability claims.
Negligence
The elements of negligence are: "(1) the existence of a duty on part of defendant to protect plaintiff from injury ; (2) a violation of that duty; and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom." Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., 1986 OK 41, , 725 P.2d 300, 302. "The existence of a duty is an essential element of a negligence claim; without it the claim must fail." Henry v. Merck and Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 1489, 1492 (10 th Cir. 1989) (citing Oklahoma law). "Just because the defendant has created a risk which harmed the plaintiff that does not mean that, in the absence of some duty to the plaintiff, the defendant will be held liable." Nicholson v. Tacker, 1973 OK 75, , 512 P.2d 156, 158. Indeed, " ecause duty and liability are matters of public policy they are subject to the changing attitudes and needs of society." Brigance, , 725 P.2d 300, 303. Accordingly, " hether a duty exists is a legal question to be determined by the court." Henry, 877 F.2d at 1492.
For example, the Supreme Court has held a tavern owner has no liability to an intoxicated adult who voluntarily consumes alcoholic beverages to excess and sustains injuries (to himself) as a result of his intoxication. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Todd, 1991 OK 54, , 813 P.2d 508, 512. " s a matter of public policy drunken persons who harm themselves are responsible for their condition, and should not prevail either under a common law or statutory basis." Ohio Cas., , 813 P.2d at 511. In concluding the legal system should not reward inebriates for their immoderation, the Ohio Cas. court concurred with the following view enunciated in Kindt v. Kauffman, 57 Cal. ApP.3d 845, 129 Cal. Rptr. 603, 610 (1976):
When the restraint of reason and the ability to care for one's self are perverted by a conscious, self-indulgent act of voluntary intoxication which temporarily casts off those powers, no societal or personal wrong, nor violation of public or social policy is accomplished or violated if the actor is alone held answerable for his injury . . . . Governmental paternalism protecting people from their own conscious folly fosters individual irresponsibility and is normally to be discouraged. . . . To go yet another step and allow monetary recovery to one who knowingly becomes intoxicated and thereby injures himself is in our view morally indefensible.
Ohio Cas., , 813 P.2d at 511-12. If public policy does not condone a cause of action by inebriates suing for injuries caused by their own intoxication, we see no reason why it should permit addicts to recover for injuries stemming from their illicit drug use.
Furthermore, " he general rule is that, absent special circumstances, no duty is imposed on a party to anticipate and prevent the intentional or criminal acts of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|