Crocker v. Winthrop Laboratories, Division of Sterling Drug, Inc.
514 S.W. 2d 429 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer who makes a positive, material misrepresentation about the safety of its product is strictly liable for physical harm to a consumer caused by justifiable reliance on that misrepresentation, even if the manufacturer could not have reasonably foreseen the harm.
Facts:
- In 1967, Glenn E. Crocker was prescribed a new pain relief drug called Talwin, manufactured by Winthrop Laboratories, following several surgeries for work-related injuries.
- A representative of Winthrop Laboratories specifically told Crocker's doctor, Dr. Palafox, that Talwin was non-addictive, as harmless as aspirin, and could be given for as long as desired.
- Relying on these representations, Dr. Palafox prescribed Talwin liberally to Crocker and assured him that the drug was non-addictive.
- Crocker developed a severe physical dependency on Talwin.
- After being hospitalized for detoxification, Crocker's tolerance for narcotics was very low.
- Shortly after leaving the hospital, Crocker received an injection of demerol, another narcotic, and died as a result.
Procedural Posture:
- Clarissa Crocker sued Winthrop Laboratories in the trial court for wrongful death and damages.
- A jury in the trial court found in favor of Clarissa Crocker.
- Winthrop Laboratories, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Winthrop Laboratories.
- Clarissa Crocker, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a manufacturer's positive misrepresentation that its drug is non-addictive create strict liability for a consumer's death resulting from addiction, even if the manufacturer could not have reasonably foreseen the drug's addictive potential in a user at the time of marketing?
Opinions:
Majority - Reavley, J.
Yes. A manufacturer is strictly liable for harm resulting from a positive misrepresentation about its product's safety, regardless of foreseeability. The court based its holding on Section 402B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which subjects a seller to liability for physical harm to a consumer caused by justifiable reliance upon a misrepresentation of a material fact. The jury found that Winthrop represented Talwin as non-addictive, Dr. Palafox relied on this representation, and Crocker's resulting addiction was a producing cause of his death. The court held that these findings are sufficient to establish liability. It explicitly rejected the defense that the harm was not foreseeable, distinguishing this case of positive misrepresentation from cases involving only a failure to warn of an unknown danger. When a manufacturer makes a specific, positive assurance of safety, it is liable if that assurance proves false and causes harm.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the tort of misrepresentation under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402B in Texas products liability law. It creates a clear distinction between liability for failure to warn of unknown dangers (where foreseeability may be a defense) and liability for affirmative misrepresentations of safety (where foreseeability is irrelevant). The ruling holds manufacturers to a higher standard when they make specific safety claims, ensuring they cannot escape liability for harms caused by false assurances by claiming the danger was scientifically unknowable at the time. This precedent strengthens consumer protection by making reliance on a manufacturer's express safety claims justifiable grounds for recovery.
