[Allergy Injuries] Drug company ABC Drugs introduced a new over-the-counter allergy pill guaranteed to prevent sneezing and sniffling for twenty-four hours after the consumption of one pill.The packaging contained warnings of the drug's side effects,including nausea and headache.After it was initially put on the market,the company became aware of a risk of dizziness from the drug in people with high blood pressure.However,the company did not warn of the additional risk because the company was concerned that individuals might not buy the pill.The risk of dizziness for the average person was extremely low.Julia had suffered allergies for years and had tried nearly every new product on the market.She even maintained a blog called "Ask the Expert About Allergies." She thought that ABC's pill was a great idea and purchased it at her local convenient store.She purchased the product after the date the company became aware of the issues involving dizziness.She took one pill and felt fine for a few days.Then,however,she began feeling dizzy.Her dizziness caused her to fall and break her leg on a flight of steps.She later discovered that the allergy pill likely made her dizzy.Julia sued under state law alleging failure to warn of the dangerous side effect of the drug.The drug company claimed that it had no duty to list dizziness as a risk because it was anover-the-counter drug and the risk of dizziness to the average person was extremely rare.
-Is the company correct that it had no duty to warn of the risk of dizziness?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)When the user of an over-the-counter drug has a reaction to that product,many courts find that there is no duty to warn unless the plaintiff proves that 1)the product contained an ingredient to which an appreciable number of people would have an adverse reaction;2)the defendant knew or should have known,in the exercise of ordinary care,about the existence of this group;and 3)the plaintiff's reaction was due to his or her membership in this abnormal group.
B)When the user of an over-the-counter drug has a reaction to that product,many courts find that there is no duty to warn unless the plaintiff proves that 1)the product contained an ingredient to which an appreciable number of people would have an adverse reaction;2)the defendant knew or should have known,in the exercise of ordinary care,about the existence of this group;and 3)the plaintiff's reaction was due to his or her membership in this abnormal group.
C)When the user of an over-the-counter drug has a reaction to that product,many courts find that there is no duty to warn unless the plaintiff proves that 1)the product contained an ingredient to which an appreciable number of people would have an adverse reaction;2)the defendant knew or should have known,in the exercise of ordinary care,about the existence of this group;and 3)the plaintiff's reaction was due to his or her membership in this abnormal group.
D)When the user of an over-the-counter drug has a reaction to that product,many courts find that there is no duty to warn unless the plaintiff proves that 1)the product contained an ingredient to which an appreciable number of people would have an adverse reaction;2)the defendant knew or should have known,in the exercise of ordinary care,about the existence of this group;and 3)the plaintiff's reaction was due to his or her membership in this abnormal group.
E)When the user of an over-the-counter drug has a reaction to that product,many courts find that there is no duty to warn unless the plaintiff proves that 1)the product contained an ingredient to which an appreciable number of people would have an adverse reaction;2)the defendant knew or should have known,in the exercise of ordinary care,about the existence of this group;and 3)the plaintiff's reaction was due to his or her membership in this abnormal group.

[Allergy Injuries] Drug Company ABC Drugs Introduced a New Over-The-Counter