Opinion ID: 2033455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Interpretation of Comment k. in Other Jurisdictions

Text: Comment k., however, has been interpreted in a variety of ways in other jurisdictions, and there has been a wide range of disagreement regarding its application. See, e.g., Jeffrey D. Winchester, Note, Section 8( c ) of the Proposed Restatement (Third) of Torts: Is It Really What the Doctor Ordered?, 82 Cornell L.Rev. 644 (1997) ( § 8(c) now § 6(c) of Third Restatement; describing differences of opinion regarding comment k. ); Annot., 70 A.L.R.4th 16 (1989) (collecting cases). Only a few jurisdictions have interpreted comment k. in a manner that strictly excepts all prescription drugs from strict liability. Under the minority view, a drug that is properly manufactured and accompanied by an adequate warning of the risks known to the manufacturer at the time of sale is not defectively designed as a matter of law. Brown v. Superior Court (Abbott Laboratories), 44 Cal.3d 1049, 245 Cal.Rptr. 412, 751 P.2d 470 (1988); Grundberg v. Upjohn Co., 813 P.2d 89 (Utah 1991); Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, 130 Wash.2d 160, 922 P.2d 59 (1996) (en banc). These jurisdictions are commonly described by legal commentators as providing manufacturers with a blanket immunity from strict liability for design defects in prescription drugs. See, e.g., Winchester, supra. Our decision in McDaniel, supra, generally falls under this category of interpretation of comment k.