Opinion ID: 76033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Carter Five-Part Test

Text: 43 We also address Ellis's argument that her claims should be analyzed under the balancing test set forth in Carter v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 217 Ga.App. 139, 456 S.E.2d 661 (1995). Under Georgia law, the balancing test addresses when a supplier's duty to warn an ultimate consumer can be discharged by a warning given to an intermediary party. Id. at 143, 456 S.E.2d 661. In that regard, a court must balance several factors: the burden of requiring a warning; the likelihood that the intermediary will provide a warning; the likely efficacy of such a warning; the degree of danger posed by the absence of such a warning; and the nature of the potential harm. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 44 We agree with the district court that the Georgia decision in Presto, discussed ante, forecloses Ellis's argument about Carter. In Presto, the Georgia Court of Appeals applied the learned intermediary rule to a failure-to-warn claim involving a prescription drug and explained that Carter had no applicability, as follows: 45 Carter involved plaintiffs who purchased clothing available to the general public without warnings regarding the fabric's flammability. Carter is not applicable to this case, which involves a prescription drug, available only through a licensed, skilled physician. 46 Presto, 226 Ga.App. at 548, 487 S.E.2d 70 (emphasis in the original). Here, the PCA pump is a prescription medical device available only through a licensed, skilled physician. Thus, under Presto, the balancing test used in Carter does not apply.