Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

BRUESEWITZ v. WYETH LLC 

Opinion of the Court 

[its] intended . . . use.”41 

We have no need to consider the finer points of comment 
k.  Whatever  consistent  judicial  gloss  that  comment  may 
have been given in 1986, there is no reason to believe that 
§300aa–22(b)(1)  was  invoking  it.  The  comment  creates  a 
special  category  of  “unavoidably  unsafe  products,”  while 
the  statute  refers  to  “side  effects  that  were  unavoidable.” 
That  the  latter  uses  the  adjective  “unavoidable”  and  the
former  the  adverb  “unavoidably”  does  not  establish  that 
Congress  had  comment  k  in  mind.    “Unavoidable”  is 
hardly a rarely used word.  Even the cases petitioners cite 
as putting a definitive gloss on comment k use the precise 
phrase  “unavoidably  unsafe  product”;42  none  attaches 
special  significance  to  the  term  “unavoidable”  standing 
alone. 

The textual problems with petitioners’ interpretation do 

—————— 

41 Id., Comment k, p. 353; Petitioners cite, inter alia, Kearl v. Lederle 
Labs.,  172  Cal.  App.  3d  812,  828–830,  218  Cal.  Rptr.  453,  463–464 
(1985);  Belle  Bonfils  Memorial  Blood  Bank  v.  Hansen,  665  P. 2d  118, 
122 (Colo. 1983). 

Though it is not pertinent to our analysis, we point out that  a large
number of courts disagreed with that reading of comment k, and took it 
to say that manufacturers did not face strict liability for side effects of
properly  manufactured  prescription  drugs  that  were  accompanied  by
adequate warnings.  See, e.g., Brown v. Superior Court, 227 Cal. Rptr.
768, 772–775 (Cal. App. 1986), (officially depublished), aff’d 44 Cal. 3d
1049,  751  P. 2d  470  (1988);  McKee  v.  Moore,  648  P. 2d  21,  23  (Okla. 
1982);  Stone  v.  Smith,  Kline  &  French  Labs.,  447  So. 2d  1301,  1303– 
1304  (Ala.  1984);  Lindsay  v.  Ortho  Pharm.  Corp.,  637  F. 2d  87,  90–91 
(CA2 1980) (applying N. Y. law); Wolfgruber v. Upjohn Co., 72 App. Div. 
2d 59, 61, 423 N. Y. S. 2d 95, 96 (1979); Chambers v. G. D. Searle & Co., 
441  F. Supp.  377,  380–381  (D Md. 1975); Basko v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 
416 F. 2d 417, 425 (CA2 1969) (applying Conn. law). 

42 See,  e.g.,  Johnson  v.  American  Cyanamid  Co.,  239  Kan.  279,  285, 
718  P. 2d  1318,  1323  (1986);  Feldman  v.  Lederle  Labs.,  97  N. J.  429, 
440, 446–447, 479 A. 2d 374, 380, 383–384 (1984); Belle Bonfils Memo-
rial  Blood  Bank  supra,  at  121–123;  Cassisi  v.  Maytag  Co.,  396  So. 2d 
1140, 1144, n. 4, 1146 (Fla. App. 1981); Racer v. Utterman, 629 S. W. 2d 
387, 393 (Mo. App. 1981).