No matter the theory of liability asserted, such as strict liability or negligence, ultimately, "[t]o succeed on [her] failure-to-warn claim, [a] plaintiff [is] required to prove that the product did not contain adequate warnings and that the inadequacy of those warnings was the proximate cause of the injuries" (Mulhall v Hannafin, 45 AD3d 55, 58 [1st Dept 2007]). "Although a prescription drug is by its nature an inherently unsafe product and would in the usual case impute strict liability to its manufacturer, a defense is provided against such liability when the drug is 'properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warnings'" (Martin v Hacker, 83 NY2d 1, 8 [1993], quoting Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, 61 [4th Dept 1979], affd 52 NY2d 768 [1980] [quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment k, remaining citations omitted]). "Therefore, even though its side effects may cause injury, a prescribed drug, accompanied by adequate warnings, is 'not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous'" (Martin, 83 NY2d at 8, quoting Wolfgruber, 72 AD2d at 61).
Sosna v. American Home Products, 298 A.D.2d 158, 158, 748 N.Y.S.2d 548, 548 (1st Dep't. 2002); see also Smallwood v. Clairol, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 8394 SWK, 2005 WL 425491, at *2 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2005). In the case of prescription medications, where warnings are directed to prescribing physicians, a plaintiff must demonstrate that had a different, more accurate warnings been given, his physician would not have prescribed the drug in the same manner. See, Mulhall v. Hannafin, 45 A.D.3d 55, 61; 841 N.Y.S.2d 282, 287 (1st Dep't. 2007); see Krasnopolsky, 799 F. Supp. at 1347. Plaintiff cannot meet this burden of demonstrating that an alleged failure to warn was the proximate cause of his injuries.
Under New York law, a manufacturer, distributor, seller, or other party that places a product on the market owes a duty to warn of all potential dangers that the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or other party knows or ought to know of resulting from foreseeable uses of its product. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 27 N.Y.3d 765, 787, 790 (2016); Passante v. Agway Consumer Prods., Inc., 12 N.Y.3d 372, 382 (2009); Mulhall v. Hannafin, 45 A.D.3d 55, 58 (1st Dep't 2007); Anaya v. Town Sports Intl., Inc., 44 A.D.2d 485, 487 (1st Dep't 2007). See Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289, 297 (1992); Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 143 A.D.3d 483, 483-84 (1st Dep't 2016); Peraica v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., 143 A.D.3d 448, 449 (1st Dep't 2016).
To establish a claim for failure to warn, plaintiffs must allege "that the product did not contain adequate warnings and that the inadequacy of those warnings was the proximate cause of the injuries." (Mulhall v. Hannafin, 45 A.D.3d 55, 58 [1st Dept 2007]). "Whether the cause of action for failure to warn is based on negligence or strict liability, the courts of this state have consistently held that a manufacturer's duty is to warn only of those dangers it knows of or are reasonably foreseeable."
This duty applies to failure to warn claims based both in strict liability and negligence. See Mulhall v. Hannafin, 45 A.D.3d 55, 841 N.Y.S.2d 282, 285 (2007). Under the “informed intermediary” doctrine, “the manufacturer's duty to caution against a drug's side effects is fulfilled by giving adequate warning through the prescribing physician, not directly to the patient.”
Under New York law, to state a negligence claim based on a failure to warn, plaintiff must allege that "the product did not contain adequate warnings and that the inadequacy of those warnings was the proximate cause of the injuries" (Mulhall v Hannafin, 45 A.D.3d 55, 58 [1st Dept 2007] [internal citation omitted]). A manufacturer of prescription drugs has a duty "to warn of all potential dangers in its prescription drugs that it knew, or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known to exist" (Martin v Hacker, 83 N.Y.2d 1, 8 [1993] [internal citations omitted]).
To establish a claim for failure to warn, a plaintiff must allege "that the product did not contain adequate warnings and that the inadequacy of those warnings was the proximate cause of the injuries." (Mulhall v. Hannafin, 45 A.D.3d 55, 58 [1st Dept 2007]). The manufacturer's duty "under New York law, is to warn the medical community, not the patient of the product's risk."
The negligence claim is thus based on Tyco's alleged failure to warn about the dangers of the test tank, specifically the danger of overfilling. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability ("Restatement") § 2(c) (Am. L. Inst. 1997) (A product is defective "when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, . . . and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe."); Mulhall v. Hannafin, 45 A.D.3d 55, 58, 841 N.Y.S.2d 282 (1st Dep't 2007) ("To succeed on their failure-to-warn claim, plaintiffs were required to prove that the product did not contain adequate warnings and that the inadequacy of those warnings was the proximate cause of the injuries.
"As part of satisfying those elements, a plaintiff is 'required to prove that the product did not contain adequate warnings.' " Reed v. Pfizer, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 2d 571, 575 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Mulhall v. Hannafin, 45 A.D.3d 55, 841 N.Y.S.2d 282, 285 (2007)). However, "when a user is aware of the dangers of using a product, the supplier cannot be held liable for a failure to warn."
“As part of satisfying those elements, a plaintiff is ‘required to prove that the product did not contain adequate warnings.'” Reed v. Pfizer, Inc., 839 F.Supp.2d 571, 575 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Mulhall v. Hannafin, 841 N.Y.S.2d 282, 285 (App. Div. 2007))