Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
748 A.2d 961 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pharmacist's duty of care requires the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, and vigilance, and a breach of this duty, such as dispensing the wrong medication, may constitute negligence as a matter of law. A plaintiff's subsequent failure to promptly report side effects is properly considered under the doctrine of mitigation of damages rather than comparative negligence, unless the plaintiff's fault could rationally be deemed equal to or greater than the pharmacist's.
Facts:
- Dr. Stephen Ross prescribed the chemotherapy drug Chlorambucil for Antoinette Walter, an eighty-year-old cancer patient.
- Walter took the prescription to a Wal-Mart pharmacy on May 7, 1997.
- Wal-Mart's pharmacist, Henry Lovin, mistakenly filled the prescription with Melphalen, a substantially more powerful and toxic chemotherapy drug.
- Lovin did not speak with Walter when she picked up the medication.
- Walter took the incorrect medication as prescribed and began suffering from nausea and lack of appetite within ten days.
- During the third and fourth weeks of taking the drug, Walter developed bruises and a skin rash.
- On the twenty-third day, Walter had blood tests done, and on June 3, 1997, she contacted Dr. Ross, who instructed her to stop the medication immediately.
- Later on June 3, Walter was rushed to the hospital with gastrointestinal bleeding, where she remained for five weeks and suffered numerous severe health complications.
Procedural Posture:
- Antoinette Walter sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of Maine (a state trial court) for pharmacist malpractice.
- At the close of Walter’s case, Wal-Mart moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the trial court denied.
- At the close of all evidence, Walter moved for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability.
- The trial court granted Walter's motion, finding Wal-Mart liable as a matter of law.
- The case was submitted to the jury solely on the question of damages.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding Walter $550,000.
- Wal-Mart filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, which was denied.
- Wal-Mart (as appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 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 pharmacy commit negligence as a matter of law when its pharmacist admittedly fills a prescription with the wrong, more powerful medication, thereby justifying a directed verdict on liability for the plaintiff, even where the plaintiff delayed reporting subsequent side effects to her doctor?
Opinions:
Majority - Calkins, J.
Yes. A pharmacy that provides the wrong medication commits negligence as a matter of law, and a patient's subsequent delay in reporting side effects does not create a jury question on comparative negligence when that delay could not rationally be considered equal to or greater than the pharmacy's egregious fault. The court held that the pharmacist's own testimony established a breach of the high duty of care owed to patients. Lovin admitted he made a 'serious error,' failed to follow a standard four-step checking process, and did not counsel Walter, any of which would have caught the mistake. The court found this negligence was so obvious it did not require expert testimony and was clearly the proximate cause of Walter's injuries. Regarding Wal-Mart's claim of comparative negligence, the court reasoned that Walter's failure to recognize the drug name change was not negligent, as the pharmacist testified she would have no way of knowing it was wrong. Her delay in reporting the rash was properly a question of mitigating damages, not comparative negligence. Since the jury received a mitigation instruction allowing them to reduce damages and no rational jury could find Walter's fault equaled Wal-Mart's, the trial court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law on liability.
Concurring - Wathen, C.J.
Yes, the judgment should be affirmed, but on the grounds that Wal-Mart's counsel made a judicial admission of liability during his opening statement. Counsel unequivocally told the jury that Wal-Mart had 'never denied responsibility' and that the only dispute was the amount of 'fair, reasonable and just compensation' for Mrs. Walter. This deliberate and clear statement removed liability as a contested issue, and the court should not have needed to analyze the merits of the negligence, causation, or comparative fault arguments.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the exceptionally high standard of care imposed on pharmacists, treating it as nearly a strict liability standard when the wrong medication is dispensed. The court's decision to affirm a judgment as a matter of law for the plaintiff in a negligence case—a rare occurrence—signals that some professional errors are so blatant that they leave no room for a jury to find otherwise. Furthermore, the opinion provides a useful, if not definitive, framework for distinguishing between pre-injury comparative negligence and post-injury failure to mitigate damages, suggesting the latter is the proper lens for analyzing a plaintiff's actions after the defendant's tortious conduct has already occurred.
