Opinion ID: 2332538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wal-Mart's Negligence

Text: [¶ 14] Walter had the burden to prove that Wal-Mart, through its pharmacist employee, owed a duty to Walter that it breached, thereby causing her harm. In Tremblay v. Kimball, 107 Me. 53, 77 A. 405 (1910), we held that pharmacists owe their customers a duty of ordinary care, but that ordinary care for a pharmacist means that the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, and vigilance and the most exact and reliable safeguards must be taken. Id. at 58, 77 A. at 408. [¶ 15] Lovin, the Wal-Mart pharmacist, readily admitted that he made an error in filling Walter's prescription. He testified that he thought that the brand name for Chlorambucil was Alkeran, and he filled the prescription with Alkeran, which is Melphalen. Lovin said that he made a serious error that did not satisfy the proper standard of care for a pharmacist. He admitted that he would have discovered the error if he had followed the standard four-step process utilized to check for errors. He acknowledged that to comply with the standard of pharmacy care he should have checked the stock bottle against the prescription. He further admitted that the standard of practice required that he counsel Walter when she picked up the prescription, at which time he would have showed her the drug and discussed it with her. He testified that he did not counsel her, but if he had done so, he would have discovered the error. He also said that Walter would have no reason to suspect that she was given the wrong drug. [¶ 16] Pursuant to the standard of the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, and vigilance and the most exact and reliable safeguards as set forth in Tremblay v. Kimball , Lovin's testimony established that the standard was breached. Even if we were to determine that the standard of practice for pharmacists is the skill and diligence exercised by similar professionals, [2] Lovin's testimony established that standard and the breach of it. None of this evidence was disputed. A jury, acting reasonably, could not have found that Wal-Mart was not negligent.