Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center
513 N.E.2d 387, 117 Ill. 2d 507 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Healthcare providers and prescription drug manufacturers do not owe a legal duty to a non-patient third party who is injured by a patient's actions, even if the injury was allegedly caused by a failure to warn the patient about the medication's side effects. A provider's duty of care is limited to those in a direct patient-provider relationship or a recognized special relationship with the patient.
Facts:
- Daniel McCarthy was a psychiatric patient at Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, under the care of Dr. Irving H. Tracer and Dr. Henry K. Fine.
- McCarthy was prescribed the drugs Thorazine, manufactured by SmithKline Beckman Corp., and Prolixin Decanoate, manufactured by E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
- On August 1, 1978, the day McCarthy was discharged from the hospital, he was administered Prolixin Decanoate.
- After his discharge, McCarthy consumed an alcoholic beverage.
- Later that day, McCarthy was driving a car with James D. Kirk as a passenger.
- The car driven by McCarthy left the roadway and struck a tree, causing injury to Kirk.
Procedural Posture:
- James D. Kirk filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against the hospital, two doctors, two drug companies, and the driver, Daniel McCarthy.
- The five defendants (hospital, doctors, and drug companies) filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff's third amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the counts against them.
- The plaintiff, Kirk, appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissals and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The five defendants, as appellants, filed petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which were granted and consolidated for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do drug manufacturers, physicians, and hospitals owe a legal duty to a non-patient third party who is injured by a patient's negligent conduct allegedly caused by a failure to warn the patient of the side effects of prescribed medication?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ward
No, drug manufacturers, physicians, and hospitals do not owe a legal duty to a non-patient third party under these circumstances. For drug manufacturers, the court adopts the 'learned intermediary' doctrine, which holds that a manufacturer's duty to warn extends only to the prescribing physician, who then uses their medical judgment to warn the patient. As there is no duty to warn the patient directly, there can be no duty to a non-patient third party. For physicians and hospitals, a duty of care requires a direct provider-patient relationship or a special relationship between the patient and the injured party, which does not exist here. Extending this duty to the general public would create liability to an indeterminate class of potential plaintiffs, a result contrary to public policy.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Simon
Yes, as to the doctors and drug manufacturers, a cause of action should exist. The dissent argues that the injury to Kirk was a foreseeable consequence of the doctors' failure to warn their patient about the known dangers of driving and consuming alcohol while on the prescribed medication. The doctors' duty should extend to the foreseeable class of persons who could be harmed by this breach, including a passenger. Regarding the drug manufacturers, the majority improperly turns the learned intermediary doctrine into an absolute bar to liability without allowing the plaintiff to present evidence on the factual question of whether the warnings provided to the physicians were actually adequate.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the 'learned intermediary' doctrine in Illinois, shielding prescription drug manufacturers from liability to consumers as long as they adequately warn the prescribing physician. It significantly restricts the scope of medical malpractice liability by reinforcing the necessity of a direct physician-patient relationship or a very narrow 'special relationship' for a duty of care to exist. By refusing to extend a provider's duty to the general public, the court established a clear limit on third-party claims, thereby preventing what it viewed as potentially boundless liability for healthcare professionals and institutions.
