Cassidy v. SmithKline Beecham

A recently filed case in Pennsylvania illustrates a possible new face for liability (Cassidy v. SmithKline Beecham, 1999). The plaintiff claims that the manufacturer of a vaccine for Lyme disease should have warned physicians and patients in its advertisements that 30% of the population ran the risk of developing "treatment-resistant Lyme arthritis" because their particular genotype interacted adversely with the vaccine. This duty to warn is based not in product liability doctrine, but on negligence. 

Cassidy v. SmithKline Beecham, No. 99-10423 (C.R Chester County, Pa., filed 1999). 

---