Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Negligence
75. Does the man have a valid claim against the pharmacy?
The man took a clearly written prescription to a pharmacy. The pharmacy's employee filled the prescription by providing pills with 30 milligrams of the active ingredient instead of 20 milligrams, as was prescribed. Shortly after taking the pills as directed, the man, who had no previous history of heart problems, suffered a heart attack. Overdoses of the active ingredient had previously been associated with heart problems.
In an action by a man against a pharmacy, the man offered only the following evidence:
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. Although the evidence does not specify exactly how the pharmacy's employee erred, it is sufficient to support a claim of negligence against the pharmacy under respondeat superior principles.
A is incorrect. Under some theories, pharmacies might be held strictly liable for incorrectly filled prescriptions. That fact is irrelevant here, however, because in this case, the evidence of the employee's negligence, while circumstantial, is sufficient to support a negligence claim against the pharmacy under respondeat superior principles.
D is incorrect. It is not necessary to establish that a product was defective in order to establish a claim in negligence. Here, there is no evidence demonstrating that the product itself was defective. If the pill bottle had been improperly labeled, the product would have been considered defective, but there is no mention of mislabeling in the facts.