WILLIAM F. CHILDERS, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
HOFFMANN-LAROCHE, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Justice.
We review Childers v. Hoffmann La-Roche, Inc., 514 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), in which the district court of appeal affirmed the trial court on the authority of Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 513 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Because we accepted conflict jurisdiction of Felix, we also have jurisdiction of Childers under article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution. Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
Both the Felix and Childers cases involved children who died of birth defects attributed to the taking of Accutane by their mothers during pregnancy. The facts of both cases are essentially the same insofar as they relate to the issues under review. In Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102 (Fla.1989), we approved the opinion of the district court of appeal. Therefore, upon the authority of our disposition of the Felix case, we approve the decision of the district court of appeal in Childers.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Brito v. Cnty. OF Palm Beach, 753 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…o Super Shops by AEW were sufficient. The sufficiency and reasonableness of a manufacturer’s warnings are fact questions appropriate for the jury to decide unless such warnings are “accurate, clear, and unambiguous.” Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla.1989). AEW’s warning that only qualified person should install its wheel is an instruction, not a warning. A warning should contain some wording directed to the significant dangers arising from failure to use the product in the prescribed…
-
Scott and Denise Adams v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 576 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…of prescription drug warnings can become a question of law where the warning is accurate, clear, and unambiguous, it otherwise remains a question of fact. See Upjohn Co. v. MacMurdo, 562 So. 2d 680, 681-2 (Fla.1990); Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102, 105 (Fla.1989). In this case, the Adamses produced evidence tending to show that the warnings were not accurate, clear, and unambiguous; therefore, the adequacy of the warnings was a question of fact for the jury, and the trial court erred in decid…
-
Petruska v. Smartparks-Silver Springs, Inc., 914 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…rs who could join their oaths to that of the defendant. Rule 1.36 of the Florida Rules of Civil Practice was not meant to provide compurgation in an even easier form nor does it do so”), disapproved on other grounds, Felix v. Hoffmann—LaRoche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102 (Fla.1989). The other arguments raised by Smart-parks relate to the alleged negligence of Petruska. The jury should determine if Petruska was comparatively negligent and, if so, to what degree. Based on the record before us and the testimony presen…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Felix v. Hoffmann-LaROCHE, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1989)
- Felix v. Hoffmann-LaROCHE, Inc., 513 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Childers v. Hoffmann LaROCHE, Inc., 514 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)