Pittman v. Upjohn Co.

Supreme Court of Tennessee · Torts

Tortsdutyfailure to warnprescription drugsforeseeabilitysummary judgmentsummary judgmentduty

Facts

Dr. Simonton prescribed Micronase for Pittman's grandmother, and Portland Prescription Shop dispensed the tablets with a label directing her to take one before breakfast and a warning to keep medicine out of the reach of children; no other warning was given to her by the physician or pharmacist. Upjohn's package inserts to the physician and pharmacist warned that Micronase could cause severe hypoglycemia and stated that risks, symptoms, treatment, and predisposing conditions should be explained to patients and responsible family members. Months later, Pittman, a 26-year-old visiting his grandmother, took several Micronase tablets from on top of her refrigerator, apparently thinking they were aspirin. He suffered severe hypoglycemia, permanent brain damage, and long-term hospitalization.

Issue

Whether the manufacturer, prescribing physician, and dispensing pharmacy owed a legal duty to warn Pittman, a non-patient for whom the drug was not prescribed, of the dangers of Micronase. Also, whether any alleged inadequacy in Upjohn's warnings to the physician and pharmacist created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Rule

Duty is a question of law and depends on reasonable foreseeability: if the injury was not a reasonably foreseeable probability, no duty arises. For unavoidably dangerous prescription drugs, a manufacturer may satisfy its duty to warn by giving adequate warnings to the prescribing physician under the learned intermediary doctrine. Physicians and pharmacists may owe duties beyond the patient or customer, but only to non-patients whose injuries and the manner in which they occur are reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances.

🔒

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 Nashville, Cedar Vale Pharmaceuticals sold a prescription anti-seizure drug only through licensed prescribers. Its package insert to physicians expressly described the risk of respiratory collapse, listed warning signs, explained emergency treatment, and instructed physicians to explain those risks and symptoms to patients and responsible family members. A patient's roommate later swallowed several tablets by mistake and suffered serious injury.

In the roommate's failure-to-warn suit against Cedar Vale, which is the strongest argument for summary judgment for the manufacturer?

Explanation. For prescription drugs, the manufacturer may satisfy its duty to warn by providing adequate warnings to the prescribing physician, who serves as the learned intermediary. The doctrine does not create blanket immunity, and it depends on the warning being adequate. Here the warning fully disclosed the danger, symptoms, treatment, and need to instruct patients and responsible family members, so summary judgment is strongest on that ground. (Derived from Pittman v. Upjohn Co. (n.d.).)