NEGLIGENCE - PROXIMATE CAUSE - FRAUD - FALSE STATEMENT BY DRUGGIST AS TO INGREDIENTS OF PRESCRIPTION

Authors

Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

Plaintiff purchased from the defendant a prescription calling for an ingredient free from mercury, to which plaintiff was allergic. Defendant intentionally, for want of the other ingredient, substituted a commercial compound containing mercury without notifying the purchaser. Subsequent applications caused inflammation, and plaintiff's doctor inquired as to whether mercury was an ingredient of the prescription. Defendant, knowing otherwise, replied in the negative. Further applications in reliance upon the statement caused more serious injury. The jury found the defendant negligent in filling the prescription, but a verdict was returned for the defendant on the ground that the injury was not foreseeable; however, plaintiff's request for a new trial was granted because of failure to instruct the jury upon the subsequent misrepresentation made by the druggist to the doctor. From this order the defendant appealed. Held, that the trial court was correct in granting a new trial, but that either of the druggist's acts constituted actionable misrepresentations. Hoar v. Rasmusen, (Wis. 1938) 282 N. W. 652.

Recommended Citation

Michigan Law Review, NEGLIGENCE - PROXIMATE CAUSE - FRAUD - FALSE STATEMENT BY DRUGGIST AS TO INGREDIENTS OF PRESCRIPTION, 37 Mich. L. Rev. 973 (1939).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol37/iss6/22