Brown v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California · 1988 · Torts

44 Cal. 3d 1049 (1988)

Updated July 23, 2026

strict liabilityprescription drugsmarket share liabilityfailure to warnfraudbreach of warrantyjoint and several liabilitycomment k

Facts

Numerous plaintiffs alleged they were injured in utero when their mothers ingested DES prescribed to prevent miscarriage. Typical complaints named many drug manufacturers, alleged DES was defectively designed and inadequately warned against, and sought recovery on theories including strict liability, negligence, fraud, and breach of express and implied warranty. Because many plaintiffs could not identify the specific manufacturer of the DES their mothers took, they sought to proceed under the market share theory recognized in Sindell. The coordinated proceeding presented pretrial legal questions about strict liability for prescription drugs and the scope of market share liability.

Issue

May a prescription drug manufacturer be held strictly liable for a design defect or for failure to warn of dangers that were not known or scientifically knowable at the time of distribution? In DES market share litigation, may a plaintiff proceed on fraud or breach of warranty theories, and are defendant manufacturers jointly and severally liable or only severally liable according to market share?

Rule

A manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries caused by a prescription drug so long as the drug was properly prepared and accompanied by warnings of its dangerous propensities that were either known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the time of distribution. Comment k applies to prescription drugs generally, rather than only after a case-by-case finding that a particular drug is unavoidably dangerous. A plaintiff proceeding on a Sindell market share theory may not prosecute fraud or breach of warranty claims, and defendants in a market share action are severally liable only for the proportion of the judgment represented by their respective market shares.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Dr. Elena Park prescribed Cardelex, a prescription medication used to control a dangerous heart rhythm, to Jonah Mills. The drug was properly manufactured and labeled, but Jonah suffered a rare internal injury allegedly caused by the drug’s chemical composition, and he sues the manufacturer on a strict liability design defect theory.

How should the court rule on Jonah’s strict liability design defect claim?

Explanation. The majority held that liability for defects in the design of prescription drugs should not be measured by strict liability standards. Instead, properly prepared prescription drugs accompanied by proper warnings of known or reasonably scientifically knowable dangers are not subject to strict liability for design defect. The court rejected applying Barker design-defect analysis to prescription drugs.