Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian

Supreme Court of Alabama · Torts

TortsFraudProducts LiabilityMedical DevicesEmotional Distressfraudproduct liabilitymedical device

Facts

Farsian alleged that Shiley fraudulently induced him to receive a Bjork-Shiley heart valve by representing it as an outstanding valve that would last indefinitely while failing to disclose known strut fracture risks and manufacturing problems. He claimed he relied on information from his doctor and from Shiley in choosing that valve over a pig valve and would not have consented to implantation had he known of the fracture risk. Farsian sought damages for diminished value of the implanted valve, mental anguish and emotional distress, expenses for possible replacement surgery, and punitive damages. It was undisputed, however, that Farsian's valve had not failed and was functioning properly.

Issue

Whether, under Alabama law, a heart valve recipient can maintain a fraud claim against the manufacturer when the implanted valve is and has been working properly, and the plaintiff's alleged damages are based only on fear of future failure, reduced value, emotional distress, and desired replacement costs rather than an injury-producing malfunction.

Rule

Under Alabama law, fear that a product may fail in the future is not, without more, a legal injury sufficient to support a claim for damages. A plaintiff cannot obtain recovery by styling the case as fraud when, in substance, the claim seeks damages based on the risk of future product failure and the product has not failed, malfunctioned, or otherwise caused a recognized injury.

🔒

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 Birmingham, Alabama, Lena Ortiz received an implanted spinal stimulator made by Redstone NeuroSystems. Two years later, she learned that the manufacturer had allegedly concealed internal reports showing a small risk that the device's battery housing could crack in some patients. Lena's own device has never malfunctioned, but she now sues for fraudulent inducement, seeking damages for anxiety, reduced value of the implant, and the projected cost of elective replacement surgery.

Under the majority rule, what is the best result?

Explanation. The majority treats such a claim according to its substance rather than its label. Where the implanted product has not failed and is functioning properly, fear that it may fail in the future is not a legal injury under Alabama law. The plaintiff cannot obtain damages for emotional distress, diminished value, or elective replacement by recasting the claim as fraud. (Derived from Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian (n.d.).)