US-Produkthaftung und Kausalität

Aktuelle Entscheidung des UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT in Sachen Dean v. Eli Lilly & Co zur Frage der Kausalität – im Sinne des Hersteller (auch in der Frage der Abwägung Warnhinweise und Bewerbung); Auszugsweise: “ Dr. Rousseau testified further that nothing he learned after 2002 caused him to second-guess his decisions about Dean’s treatment. Id. at 54-55. This testimony is sufficient to demonstrate that Dr. Rousseau had “actual knowledge of the substance of the alleged warning and would have taken the same course of action even with the information the plaintiff contends should have been provided.” Beale v. Biomet, 492 F. Supp. 2d at 1371 (internal quotation marks omitted). Such evidence breaks the causal chain between the purported inadequacy of Lilly’s warnings and the alleged injury to Dean. Dean nevertheless contends that his case falls within an exception to the learned intermediary doctrine applicable where “overpromotion of a product negates any warnings.” Id. at 1377.3 We are not persuaded. Although the record reflects a vigorous sales campaign for Zyprexa aimed at Dr. Rousseau, Dean points to no evidence that Lilly’s salespeople either misled Dr. Rousseau about the link between Zyprexa and diabetes or caused Dr. Rousseau to prescribe Zyprexa to Dean.“  Entscheidung: decision

Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert