Rodriguez v. Superior Court
Before: Stone
Opinion — Stone
Opinion
STONE (W. A.), J. Petitioners (plaintiffs)1 ask us to determine that the holding of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d [137310]49 [245 Cal.Rptr. 412, 751 P.2d 470], abolishing strict liability for the manufacture of a prescription drug, should not be extended to cases of certain nonprescription medications. We will conclude such a consideration is premature. Plaintiff properly pled a cause of action for strict products liability and the trial court erroneously granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings of real party in interest (defendant).
The Case and the Facts
Andy Rodriguez, a minor, and Nancy Rodriguez, individually and as the minor’s guardian ad litem, are plaintiffs in an action pending in the superior court against several health care providers and defendant, a manufacturer of baby aspirin. The complaint alleges plaintiffs suffered damages when Andy ingested baby aspirin, causing Reyes Syndrome and leaving him severely and permanently injured. The complaint seeks recovery from defendant based in part on a theory of manufacturer’s strict liability. The portion of the complaint relevant to our discussion of that theory reads: “On or about. . . 4/26/86—4/30/86 plaintiff was injured by the following product: Orange flavored Bayer Chewable Children’s Aspirin, Lot No. 6B301, expiration date, 9/93 [.]
“ . . . Each of the defendants knew the product would be purchased and used without inspection for defects. The product was defective when it left the control of each defendant. The product at the time of injury was being . . . used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by defendants as involving a substantial danger not readily apparent. Adequate warnings of the danger were not given.” (Italics added.)
These allegations pertain to all counts of the second cause of action entitled “Products Liability.” Count one of the second cause of action alleges strict liability as follows: “Count One—Strict liability of the following defendants who (a) manufactured or assembled the product . . . : The Bayer Company, Glenbrook Laboratories, Division of Sterling Drug, Inc., (hereafter ‘Bayer’) . . . (b) designed and manufactured component parts supplied to the manufacturer . . . : Bayer . . . (c) sold the product to the public . . . : Bayer . . . .”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)