Doreen Chambers, Anthony G. Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Company

567 F.2d 269, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5607
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 15, 1977
Docket76-1521
StatusPublished
Cited by55 cases

This text of 567 F.2d 269 (Doreen Chambers, Anthony G. Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doreen Chambers, Anthony G. Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Company, 567 F.2d 269, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5607 (4th Cir. 1977).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff sued G. D. Searle & Co. (Searle) alleging that as a result of taking an oral contraceptive manufactured and sold by Searle, she had contracted cerebral thrombosis, and that Searle was liable for her injuries on the grounds of fraud, implied warranty, strict liability and negligence. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the district court granted Searle’s motion for a directed verdict, ruling, in a carefully considered and thorough opinion, that plaintiff had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to permit a jury to return a verdict in her favor on any one of the four theories of liability which she asserted. She appeals, contending that the district court was in error with regard to her claim of negligence on the part of Searle which resulted in her injuries.

After hearing oral argument and considering the briefs and record, we see no error. We are not persuaded that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to determine whether Searle was negligent in not pursuing medical research to determine the possible consequences from taking the oral contraceptive, or in failing to discover those consequences, or in the adequacy of the warnings given to physicians in the light of the medical knowledge at the time, or in overpromotion of sales of the product. On the issues presented on appeal, we affirm on the opinion of the district court. Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Co., et al., 441 F.Supp. 377 (D.Md.1975).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ideus v. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc.
361 F. Supp. 3d 938 (D. Nebraska, 2019)
Beale v. Biomet, Inc.
492 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Florida, 2007)
Doe v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
350 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D. Maine, 2004)
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey
878 So. 2d 31 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2004)
Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc.
153 S.W.3d 758 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2004)
Miller v. Pfizer Inc.(Roerig Division)
196 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Kansas, 2002)
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Robert Bailey
Mississippi Supreme Court, 2001
Burton v. American Home Products Corp.
955 F. Supp. 700 (E.D. Texas, 1997)
Glassman v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.
606 N.E.2d 338 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1992)
Strumph v. Schering Corp.
606 A.2d 1140 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
MacPherson v. Searle & Co.
775 F. Supp. 417 (District of Columbia, 1991)
Reaves v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
765 F. Supp. 1287 (E.D. Michigan, 1991)
Humes v. Clinton
792 P.2d 1032 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1990)
Lacy v. G.D. Searle & Co.
567 A.2d 398 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1989)
Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Doe
556 A.2d 1107 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1989)
Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.
540 So. 2d 102 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Spychala v. G.D. Searle & Co.
705 F. Supp. 1024 (D. New Jersey, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
567 F.2d 269, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doreen-chambers-anthony-g-chambers-v-g-d-searle-company-ca4-1977.