Thursday, December 21, 2017

T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, S233898

Foreseeability (California law), Negligence, Tort:

California law places greater weight on the element of foreseeability in the duty analysis than does Maryland law. Indeed, this state treats foreseeability as “the most important factor” (Kesner, 1 Cal.5th at p. 1145), and we do not narrowly circumscribe the kinds of relationships that must exist between the plaintiff and the defendant as a predicate to imposing a duty on the defendant to prevent injuries arising from its own conduct. (Id. at p. 1163; see Randi W., 14 Cal.4th at p. 1077 [one who negligently provides false information to another can owe a duty of care to a third person “who did not receive the information and who has no special relationship with the provider”].)

We therefore do not find persuasive those out-of-state cases discounting the role of foreseeability (see, e.g., Huck v. Wyeth, Inc., 850 N.W.2d at p. 376 (plur. opn. of Waterman, J.) [“‘foreseeability should not enter into the duty calculus’”]) or requiring the existence of a specific type of relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant (see, e.g., Moretti v. Wyeth, Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 579 Fed. Appx. 563, 564 [construing negligent misrepresentation, under Nevada law, to “‘require, at a minimum, some form of relationship between the parties’”]; Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc. (10th Cir. 2013) 727 F.3d 1273, 1282 [“Oklahoma courts have also required a relationship between the defendant company and the product at issue for other theories of liability, including negligence”]).

(Cal. S.C., Dec. 21, 2017, T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, S233898).

Prévisibilité du dommage en responsabilité civile et contractuelle (droit californien) :

Face à la question de savoir si un défendeur répond envers un lésé, le droit californien accorde une importance essentielle à la notion de prévisibilité. Si le défendeur pouvait prévoir qu'un tiers quelconque, dont l'existence pouvait même lui être inconnue, risquait d'être lésé, ce défendeur pourrait être condamné à répondre (l'espèce concerne en particulier l'application de la théorie de la "misrepresentation" dans le contexte pharmaceutique).

No comments:

Post a Comment