Singleton v. Airco, Inc.

13 Citing cases

  1. Mazur v. Merck Co., Inc.

    964 F.2d 1348 (3d Cir. 1992)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Pennsylvania law, a prescription drug manufacturer's liability is determined through a negligence theory, not strict liability

    Id. at 933. In finding the learned intermediary rule applicable, the Walker court relied squarely on a Georgia Court of Appeals decision, Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 314 S.E.2d 680 (1984), which extended the learned intermediary rule to nurses under Georgia law. The plaintiff in Singleton died after developing malignant hyperthermia, a known adverse effect of an anesthetizing agent manufactured by the defendant.

  2. Presto v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.

    226 Ga. App. 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 39 times
    Considering pharmacists' duties to warn of the dangers associated with discontinuing the use of a drug and disregarding the Board of Pharmacy's regulations as being passed after the events giving rise to the action occurred

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 664 ( 314 S.E.2d 680) (1984); see also Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga. App. 481, 482-483 (1) ( 249 S.E.2d 286) (1978); Parke, Davis Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga. App. 224 ( 183 S.E.2d 410) (1971). The plaintiffs mistakenly claim that Carter v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 217 Ga. App. 139 ( 456 S.E.2d 661) (1995) weakens this rule.

  3. Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co.

    178 Ga. App. 438 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 16 times
    In Stiltjes, a pesticide manufacturer supplied a commercial applicator with a pesticide that caused an adverse reaction in the plaintiff, an apartment dweller.

    Further, even assuming Dettelbach did have a duty to warn as Stiltjes contends, it is undisputed that the labels in question, which include precautionary statements concerning potential hazards to humans on contact with the pesticides, meet federal labelling requirements under the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, 7 USCA §§ 136 (a)-136 (y) ("FIFRA"), thus satisfying any duty to warn on Dettelbach's part. See Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 664 ( 314 S.E.2d 680) (1984); Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 249 S.E.2d 286) (1978); Webb v. Sandoz Chem. Works, 85 Ga. App. 405, 409 (2) ( 69 S.E.2d 689) (1952). See also 7 USCA § 136v (b); National Agricultural Chem. Assn. v. Rominger, 500 F. Supp. 465 (D.C. Cal., 1980).

  4. Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

    598 F.3d 812 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 152 times
    Finding that the learned intermediary doctrine was applicable to the plaintiff's claim for strict liability and negligent failure to warn

    If the warning was adequate, the inquiry ends, and the plaintiff cannot recover. See Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga.App. 662, 314 S.E.2d 680, 682 (1984). If the warning is inadequate, or merely presumed to be, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the deficient warning proximately caused the alleged injury to prevail.

  5. Ellis v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    311 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 52 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where hospital staff was aware of the danger in persons other than the patient activating a morphine pump, the manufacturer of the pump had no duty to warn the patients, and the learned intermediary doctrine applied

    Instead, "`in the case of prescription drugs, a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient.'" Presto, 226 Ga. App. at 548, 487 S.E.2d 70 (quoting Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga.App. 662, 664, 314 S.E.2d 680 (1984) and citing Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga.App. 481, 249 S.E.2d 286 (1978) and Parke, Davis, Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga.App. 224, 183 S.E.2d 410 (1971)). In addition, the Georgia courts have decided that "[t]his special standard for prescription drugs is an understandable exception to the . . . general rule that one who markets goods must warn foreseeable ultimate users of dangers inherent in his products."

  6. Jones v. Ethicon, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 7:20-CV-128 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Sep. 30, 2020)   Cited 4 times
    Ordering that plaintiff's strict liability design defect claim and negligent design defect clam be consolidated for the purposes of trial

    "If the warning was adequate, the inquiry ends, and the plaintiff cannot recover." Id. (citing Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 664 (1984)). But, if the warning is inadequate, "the plaintiff must demonstrate that the deficient warning proximately caused the alleged injury to prevail."

  7. In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig.

    MDL No. 16-2740 SECTION: "H" (5) (E.D. La. Jul. 9, 2019)

    Dietz, 598 F.3d at 815 (citing Wheat, 46 F. Supp. 2d at 1363). Id. (citing Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 314 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)). Id. (citing Wheat, 46 F.Supp.2d at 1363).

  8. Cisson v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00195 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 2013)   Cited 6 times
    In Cisson, the court was concerned that allowing 510(k) evidence would create a "substantial risk of misleading the jury to believe that FDA 510(k) clearance might be dispositive of the plaintiffs' state law claims" and would result in a "mini-trial on the 510(k) process and enforcement[.

    Bard contends that it did not have a duty to warn about particular product characteristics, such as pore size, or particular raw materials, such as polypropylene. (Id.). Bard misconstrues its duty to warn about risks associated with the Avaulta Plus. Bard had a duty to warn about "any potential dangers that may result" from use of the product. Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 314 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). That pores are a particular size or that the product used particular raw materials are not necessarily risks associated with product use.

  9. Trickett v. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc.

    542 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (S.D. Ga. 2008)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding that warning regarding medical device was adequate as a matter of law because it warned that there was a risk of certain "undesirable changes" that occurred in plaintiff's case, where there was no evidence suggesting that the warning on that issue was inadequate

    Ordinarily, in cases of prescription drugs and devices, "the manufacturer's duty to warn is limited to an obligation to advise the prescribing physician of any potential dangers that may result" from use. Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 664 (1984) (citations omitted). In performing this duty, the manufacturer must provide the physician with a warning that is "adequate or reasonable under the circumstances of the case."

  10. Catlett v. Wyeth, Inc.

    379 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (M.D. Ga. 2004)   Cited 17 times
    Finding pursuant to Georgia law, "no basis for a claim against a sales representative under the learned intermediary doctrine . . . [; a]lthough the manufacturers employ the sales representatives to be one source of that information, the manufacturers are the ones who are ultimately responsible and thus liable . . . for any alleged failure to provide information related to prescription drugs"

    Pursuant to the learned intermediary rule, "the manufacturer of a prescription drug is not normally required to directly warn the patient of dangers in its use. `Ordinarily, in the case of prescription drugs, a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient.'" Id. at 73 (citingSingleton v. Airco, Inc., 314 S.E.2d 680 (Ga.App. 1984);Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 249 S.E.2d 286 (Ga.App. 1978); Parke, Davis Co. v. Mayes, 183 S.E.2d 410 (Ga.App. 1971)). The court noted that