Summary
The Supreme Court of Oregon held that a product-liability claim against the drug manufacturer was barred by the two-year limitations period in ORS 30.905(2), which begins when the injury occurs rather than when it is discovered. The court held that the plaintiff's strict-liability claim against the pharmacist related back to her original negligence complaint under ORCP 23 C. It further held that Oregon's product-liability statutes did not recognize the learned-intermediary doctrine as a defense to the strict-liability claim, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Oregon's two-year product-liability limitations period under ORS 30.905(2) begins when the injury occurs or when the plaintiff discovers the injury and its relationship to the defendant's conduct.
- Whether Griffith's strict liability claim against Stout in her amended complaint related back to the original negligence complaint under ORCP 23 C.
- Whether Oregon's learned intermediary doctrine provides a defense to a strict product-liability claim against a pharmacist or other seller.
- Whether summary judgment on Griffith's negligence claim against Stout should be disturbed when Griffith presented no argument challenging that ruling on review.
Holdings
- Under ORS 30.905(2), the two-year limitations period begins when the injury occurs, not when the plaintiff discovers the injury or the relationship between the injury and the defendant's tortious conduct. Griffith's product-liability claim against Rugby, filed more than two years after her injury, was time-barred.
- The strict liability claim related back under ORCP 23 C because it arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence alleged in the original negligence complaint: Stout's alleged failure to provide adequate instructions and warnings concerning Lindane.
- Oregon's product-liability statutes do not create a learned intermediary defense to strict liability. Accordingly, Stout was not entitled to summary judgment on Griffith's strict liability claim based on the adequacy of the manufacturer's warnings to the prescribing physician.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' disposition of the negligence claim because Griffith presented no argument challenging that conclusion on review.
Key quotations
“We conclude, therefore, that Stout was not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's strict liability claim.” (51 P.3d at 1262)
“Neither the text nor the context of those statutes indicates that the legislature intended to relieve a seller from potential strict product liability on the basis of the adequacy of a manufacturer's product warnings to another intermediary (here, the physician).” (51 P.3d at 1262)
Factual background
A physician prescribed Patricia Griffith two ounces of Lindane lotion and instructed the pharmacist to label it only "As directed." Pharmacist William Stout filled the prescription in a plain bottle bearing no warnings or instructions concerning frequency or duration of use. Griffith applied the lotion daily for five or six days without washing it off within the recommended period, then developed symptoms including convulsions, dizziness, weight loss, hair loss, sleep disturbance, and cognitive dysfunction that were later diagnosed as central nervous system toxicity from Lindane overexposure.
Procedural history
Griffith filed negligence, medical malpractice, and strict liability claims arising from her use of Lindane lotion. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Stout and Rugby, concluding that the product-liability statute of limitations barred the claims and that the learned intermediary doctrine barred the strict liability claim against Stout. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the ruling for Rugby and the disposition of the negligence claim against Stout, but reversed as to Stout's strict liability claim and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings on Griffith's strict liability claim against Stout.