Opinion ID: 468819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Iowa Strict Liability Tort Law

Text: 18 The government argues that the court misconstrued Iowa strict liability tort law and our application of that law to the swine flu innoculation program in Petty II, supra, 740 F.2d at 1439-41. 3 Under the Swine Flu Act, since the vaccination was given in Iowa, Iowa law governs the government's liability when it stands in the place of a program participant like the vaccine manufacturer or the administering physician. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 247b(k)(2)(A)(i). The court reached only appellee's strict liability theory claim based on the failure of the vaccine manufacturer and that of the doctor to warn of the risk of myalgia; so that is all we need review. 19 In Petty II we had occasion to construe Iowa tort law as it applied to a strict liability claim based on the failure of a swine flu vaccine manufacturer to warn of the risk of serum sickness. In reviewing Chief Judge O'Brien's judgment in that case for the plaintiff on both negligence and strict liability theories, we held that the court correctly had predicted what the Iowa courts would do with similar claims. After affirming the court's application of Iowa negligence law, we affirmed the court's analysis of Iowa strict liability tort law in an alternative holding. 4 We held that the Iowa courts would hold a vaccine manufacturer strictly liable for its failure to warn ultimate consumers, who received the vaccine at a mass immunization center, about the risk of dangerous side effects of the vaccine. We held that, once causation had been proven, regardless of whether the manufacturer knew of the particular risk involved or whether the risk was foreseeable, knowledge of the risk would be imputed to the manufacturer under a strict liability theory. Petty II, supra, 740 F.2d at 1441. After causation has been established, therefore, the only questions that remain are whether a manufacturer with the imputed knowledge of the risk had a duty to warn the ultimate consumer of that risk and whether the warning actually given was adequate. Id. 20 In the instant case the court, after establishing causation, 5 correctly concerned itself with the crucial questions of the duty of the program participants to warn of the risk of myalgia and whether the warnings appellee received were adequate. As for the duty to warn, the court held that both the vaccine manufacturer and the doctor with their imputed knowledge had a duty to warn appellee of the risk of myalgia. This is an extension of our holding in Petty II, and we think it is an appropriate one. It is clear that the risk of prolonged, debilitating muscle pain is the type of dangerous risk which requires a warning. The remaining questions are who had the duty to warn and to warn whom. In Petty II we held that the vaccine manufacturer had a duty to warn the ultimate consumer who received the vaccine at a mass immunization center without the advice of a learned intermediary. 21 In the instant case appellee did have the help of her doctor. The doctor testified, however, that he knew nothing more about the vaccine than what the manufacturer and government had told him. We hold that the doctor's intervention is not enough to dispel the manufacturer's duty to warn the ultimate consumer in view of the swine flu program's exigent circumstances. The program was designed by the government to be at an emergency pitch and it gave physicians little chance to investigate the vaccine they were administering. The only possible sources of information on the vaccine were the manufacturer and the government who had developed and tested it. The manufacturer, therefore, properly is charged with the duty to warn doctors and consumers of the risks involved. Moreover, the doctor in a swine flu vaccination case also must be charged with a strict duty to warn of serious risks. We have little trouble in viewing doctors in the program, rather than learned intermediaries, as distributors of a defective product. As stated above, the emergency nature of the program forced this role on them. We conclude, therefore, that the court was correct in holding that both the vaccine manufacturer and appellee's doctor had a duty to warn appellee of the risk of myalgia, knowledge of that risk being imputed to them. 22 As to whether either the manufacturer or doctor breached this duty by not adequately warning appellee about the risk of myalgia, we have no difficulty in affirming the court's finding that no adequate warning on myalgia was given by either the manufacturer or the doctor. The only warning appellee was given was in the information sheet she received on the day of the vaccination. This sheet, like the government's media campaign, stressed the safety of the vaccine. It did warn that some people might experience muscle aches within the first 48 hours, but, as the court concluded, it in no way warned of the possibility of prolonged, debilitating muscle pain. 6 Under the Swine Flu Act, the government must assume liability for the breach of duty by the program participants. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 247b(k)(2)(A)(i). 23 We hold, therefore, that the court correctly applied the principles of Iowa strict liability tort law, as announced by us in Petty II, to appellee's case of failure to warn of the risk of myalgia associated with receiving a swine flu vaccination.