From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gordon v. Proctor Gamble Distrib.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Louisville
Mar 19, 1992
789 F. Supp. 1384 (W.D. Ky. 1992)

Summary

In Gordon, the court held that the plaintiff's rare idiosyncratic sensitivity did not provide a basis for a products liability suit.

Summary of this case from Hardy v. Royce Laboratories, Inc.

Opinion

No. 90-0815-L(B).

March 19, 1992.

John M. Schardein, Dean L. Sexton, Naber, Joyner, Schardein Stinson, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff.

W. Kennedy Simpson, Angela D. Hendricks, Stites Harbison, Louisville, Ky., for defendant.


MEMORANDUM


Plaintiff, Wilma Gordon (Gordon), underwent oral surgery for treatment of periodontal disease in July and August of 1989. As part of her post-operative treatment, her periodontist prescribed Peridex, a dental rinse manufactured and distributed by the defendant, The Proctor Gamble Distributing Company (P G). Plaintiff complains that after using one bottle of Peridex, she suffered permanent "severe diminished perseption (sic) as to taste." Plaintiff filed suit to recover damages based on strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty. This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.


Summaries of

Gordon v. Proctor Gamble Distrib.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Louisville
Mar 19, 1992
789 F. Supp. 1384 (W.D. Ky. 1992)

In Gordon, the court held that the plaintiff's rare idiosyncratic sensitivity did not provide a basis for a products liability suit.

Summary of this case from Hardy v. Royce Laboratories, Inc.

noting "the general rule that a plaintiff's unusual or rare idiosyncratic sensitivity does not provide a basis for recovery under any theory of product liability"

Summary of this case from Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc.

noting that the general rule is 'that a plaintiff's unusual or rare idiosyncratic sensitivity does not provide a basis for recovery under any theory of product liability'

Summary of this case from Short v. Edison Chouest Offshore, Inc.
Case details for

Gordon v. Proctor Gamble Distrib.

Case Details

Full title:Wilma GORDON, Plaintiff, v. The PROCTOR GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Louisville

Date published: Mar 19, 1992

Citations

789 F. Supp. 1384 (W.D. Ky. 1992)

Citing Cases

Short v. Edison Chouest Offshore, Inc.

"10. Under the law of products liability, there is no recovery for injuries which result from allergic or…

McCoy v. General Motors Corp.

Even under a breach of warranty, a plaintiff must still prove that the product is defective. See Gordon v.…