Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., S221038

Causes of action (Cal.): Product liability: Unfair competition: Loss of consortium:

(…) Eight separate amended complaints were filed in San Francisco Superior Court by or on behalf of 678 individuals, consisting of 86 California residents and 592 nonresidents, all of whom allegedly were prescribed and ingested Plavix, a drug created and marketed by BMS, and as a result suffered adverse consequences.

13 causes of action: Each amended complaint contains the same 13 causes of action: strict products liability (based on both design defect and manufacturing defect); negligence; breach of implied warranty; breach of express warranty; deceit by concealment (Civ. Code, §§ 1709, 1710); negligent misrepresentation; fraud by concealment; unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200); false or misleading advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500); injunctive relief for false or misleading advertising (Civ. Code, § 1750 et. seq.); wrongful death; and loss of consortium.

(Cal. S.C., August 29, 2016, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct.,  S221038, Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger, JJ., concur., Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan, JJ., diss.).

Un exemple des théories juridiques de responsabilité qui peuvent être invoquées dans une affaire qui combine responsabilité délictuelle et responsabilité du fait des produits : 13 théories les plus courantes dans ce type d’affaires, certaines émanant du droit des contrats.