The LeBlanc Law Firm
DALLAS DEFECTIVE DRUG ATTORNEY
Product liability describes the area of law that attempts to recover loss caused by a
defective product, including a defective drug. Where a drug causes an unexpected
injury to the consumer, the law protects the consumer by holding the party that
caused the defect responsible for the injury. The responsible party may be the
designer, the manufacturer, the distributor or the seller of the drug, or a
combination thereof. Determining who is responsible requires an understanding of
how the drug was designed, created, manufactured and distributed so that you can
determine where along this chain of responsibility the defect occurred. The
LeBlanc Law Firm has a Dallas defective drug lawyer who understands the causes
of a defective drug and the injury that can result. The following are examples of
drugs that have been the subject of litigation:
1. ACE Inhibitors;
9. Trasylol; and
In a products liability case, the plaintiff usually must prove that the drug was
defective. A defect is an imperfection that renders a product unsafe for its intended
or reasonably foreseeable uses. There are three general kinds of defects: design
defects, manufacturing defects, and warning defects.
Design Defect – A product has a design defect if the design (or blueprints) of the
product is unsafe.
Manufacturing Defect – A product has a manufacturing defect if the product's
design is sound but the method of making the product is unsafe.
Warning Defect – If a product does not have sufficient instructions or warnings
about its use, and you are injured as a result, the product has a warning defect.
Design defects exist when a whole class of products is inadequately planned, such
that it poses unreasonable risks to consumers. A car manufacturer's design of a
vehicle with the fuel tank positioned so that it explodes in low-speed collisions can
be classified as defective. When the design is defective, even products perfectly
manufactured are defective. A production or manufacturing defect, on the other
hand, arises when a sound design plan is not followed and the product is improperly
Sometimes, something other than the drug itself is defective. Improper labeling,
instructions, or warnings on a product can also make the drug defective.
Dangerous drugs must carry warning labels that explain their proper use, the
circumstances that are likely to cause harm, and what steps should be taken in an
emergency involving the product Proper labeling requirements also apply to claims
made in sales materials, product displays, and advertising. If these requirements are
not met and a consumer is injured, a products liability suit can enable the consumer
to recover the resulting damages.
The plaintiff in a defective drug case must prove that the drug was defective when
it left the defendant's hands and that the defect proximately caused the injury. A
defect has been said to be a proximate cause of an injury if the injury was a direct,
natural, or probable result of the defect's existence. The issue of causation in a
products liability case can be complicated, especially if the defect in the product
involved was an indirect or remote cause, or only one of a number of potential
causes. The determination of whether the defendant's negligence or breach of
warranty proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries is very much dependent on the
facts of the particular case.
In a defective drug case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant did not exercise
the proper degree of care when manufacturing or otherwise providing the product
to the consumer. Everyone in the chain of distribution must exercise reasonable
care, including the designer, the manufacturer, and the seller. The duty is owed to
anyone who is likely to be injured by the product if it is defective, including the
initial purchaser, his or her family members, bystanders, and persons who lease the
product or hold it for the purchaser.
The duty of care includes the duty to make adequate inspections during product
manufacture, the duty to use proper packaging, and the duty to issue adequate
instructions and warnings. If any of these duties is breached and someone is
injured, the consumer or other injured party can bring a claim based on negligence.
In a strict liability case, on the other hand, the plaintiff need not prove any violation
of the standard of care. Under this theory, the defendant is responsible for any
defects in its products that threaten the safety of a consumer's person or property,
even if it exercised care in handling the product and even if the plaintiff had no
direct dealings with the defendant, such as when the consumer bought the product
from someone other than the defendant. Strict liability applies when the defendant is
engaged in the business of selling the product that caused the injury, and the
product is expected to and does reach the consumer without a substantial change in
the condition in which it was sold.
Warranties are express or implied representations of fact that the law will enforce
against the person who made them. Products liability law is concerned with three
types of warranties relating to a product's quality or fitness for use: express
warranties, the implied warranty of merchantability, and the implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose. These warranties are part of the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), which every state has adopted.
An express warranty is created in one of three ways: through an affirmation of fact
about the goods made by the supplier of the goods to the purchaser, which
becomes a part of the basis of the bargain; through a description of the goods that
becomes a part of the basis of the bargain; or through a sample or model that is
made part of the basis of the bargain. An express warranty can be words spoken
during sale negotiations, or it may be written into the sales contract or on tags
attached to the product or a sample. The express warranty may have been part of
an earlier purchase of the same product, or it may arise from product publicity.
Mere sales "fluff," however, such as "This is the greatest product you'll ever buy,"
does not create an express warranty.
Implied warranties are created and imposed by law and they accompany the
transfer of title to goods unless they are expressly and clearly limited or excluded by
the contract. The UCC states that contractual limitations on liability for personal
injury, however, are unconscionable and therefore will not be enforced.
The implied warranty of merchantability requires that products and their containers
meet certain minimum quality standards, primarily that they be fit for the ordinary
purposes for which they are sold. This warranty includes a reasonable standard of
safety. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose imposes similar
requirements when the seller knows or has reason to know of the particular
purpose for which the goods are required. If the seller recommends a particular
product to meet the buyer's specific needs, it warrants that the product is fit for
An action for the breach of one of these warranties is like a strict liability claim, in
that no negligence or other fault needs to be shown. There are some limitations,
however. For instance, the seller must receive prompt notice of the breach as a
condition to imposing liability, and the buyer must have relied on the warranty.
A manufacturer has the duty to make its drugs as safe as possible. When it cannot
eliminate all risks, it must warn users and buyers of the dangers that exist. If it fails
to provide adequate warnings, the person injured because of that failure may have a
product liability claim based on failure to warn.
Warnings must be provided for any dangers likely to arise when the product is
being used normally or in a way that could reasonably be anticipated, even it if is
not a purpose for which the product was sold. A consumer who clearly misuses a
product, however, cannot recover under a failure-to-warn theory or any other
products liability theory. Also, warnings are usually not required for a product's
very obvious dangers.
Certain products, like prescription drugs, present unavoidable dangers. The duty to
warn consumers about unavoidable dangers presents special problems.
Manufacturers must provide warnings about possible side effects of such drugs,
including allergic reactions, but there may be no duty where unusually susceptible
consumers are concerned.
The manufacturer's duty to warn continues even after the product is sold. As new
information becomes available, such as through consumer complaints or scientific
testing, the manufacturer or seller must update its warnings to purchasers, either
through direct contact or, if that is not possible, through mass media publication.
Plaintiffs in products liability lawsuits are usually able to recover all foreseeable
damages. Foreseeable damages generally include economic losses, such as those
for repairs to damaged property, medical bills, and lost wages. Recoverable non-
economic damages include awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and
punitive or exemplary damages. Punitive damages are intended not to compensate
the victim for losses but to punish the defendant's conduct. Our firm has a Dallas
defective drug lawyer that can assist you with your case.
HOME *PRACTICE AREAS*EXPERIENCE*AWARDS*LINKS*CONTACT US
The LeBlanc Law Firm is located at 3102 Maple Avenue, Suite 450, Dallas, Texas. For directions,
We serve all areas of North Texas, including Dallas County, Tarrant County, Denton County,
Collin County including the cities of Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Irving, Grand Prairie, Garland,
Mesquite, Richardson, Plano, Frisco, Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Lewisville, Hurst, Euless,
Bedford, Grapevine, Coppell, Colleyville, Duncanville, DeSoto, Cedar Hill, Lancaster and
Rockwall. We also accept cases throughout the State of Texas including Houston, Austin, San
Antonio, Tyler, El Paso, Waco, Lubbock, Amarillo, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Beaumont,
Abilene, Wichita Falls, Laredo, Midland, Odessa, Texarkana or any other city in Texas.
Examples of personal injury cases handled by The LeBlanc Law Firm: truck accident, automobile
accident, premises liability (slip and fall), medical negligence, nursing home negligence, dental
negligence, wrongful death, defective product, defective drug, false imprisonment, construction
accident, employment related injuries.
Please visit our other websites: General Practice and Business and Employment law sites.