Title: Knowles v. Vick Chemical Co.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

398 S.W.2d 204 (1966) Bertha KNOWLES, Appellant, v. VICK CHEMICAL CO. et al., Appellees. No. 5-3753. Supreme Court of Arkansas. January 24, 1966. Max M. Smith, Rison, Switzer & Griffin, Crossett, for appellant. Brown & Compton, El Dorado, for appellees. COBB, Justice. Appellant filed a suit on the 16th day of February, 1965, against appellees alleging that between the dates of October 27, 1961 and March or April, 1962, she took a certain prescription drug (MER/29 triparanol) which caused her to suffer many adverse and damaging effects, and further alleging that she had taken said drug upon the express and implied warranties of appellees, the manufacturers and distributors of same, that said drug had been adequately tested and was fit for the purpose of which it was intended and fit for human use and consumption. The complaint sought damages for her injuries resulting from her alleged use of said drug. Appellees responded to the complaint by filing a demurrer seeking dismissal of the action for lack of privity between *205 the parties litigant. The demurrer admitted the truth of all well pleaded allegations of the complaint. Oliver & Oliver v. Western Clay Drainage Dist., 187 Ark. 539, 61 S.W.2d 442. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. The case is now before us on the pleadings presenting solely questions of law. We quote from appellant's able brief as follows: Act 35 of the 1965 Legislature is short, and we quote all of its three sections in full. Act 35 was approved on February 8, 1965. It contained no emergency clause. We take notice that the 1965 Legislature adjourned on March 10, 1965. Absent an emergency clause, Legislative acts do not become effective until 90 days after final adjournment of the Legislature, which, in this case, would be the 8th day of June, 1965. Thompson v. State, 151 Ark. 369, 236 S.W. 608. While it is true that this court has been moving toward a reexamination of its position as to the necessity of privity in cases of this character (Delta Oxygen Co. v. Scott, supra) we now conclude that as to the real dispositive question in this case that we are bound by the clear and unambiguous provisions of said Act 35. It squarely states that lack of privity shall not be a defense only in such actions filed after its effective date which obviously is not the case as to the instant suit. Since the whole question was before the Legislature we are not inclined, nor do we feel at liberty to enlarge upon the relief spelled out in the Act. The action of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint is, therefore, affirmed. GEORGE ROSE SMITH, J., not participating.