Jury verdicts

In 2002, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts joined a growing number of state courts that have recognized a responsibility of pharmacists to warn patients of possible side effects from prescribed medications. In the case of Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy (764 N.E.2d 814), that court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a patient who had not been warned of the risk of priapism by the pharmacist who dispensed trazodone to him. The facts of the case disclosed that the pharmacy provided a short list of warnings to the patient but priapism was not included on the list. The court ruled that when a patient can reasonably conclude that a list of side effects is a complete and comprehensive list, the pharmacy has undertaken a legal duty to provide complete warnings and information. 

For instance, in September 2004, Bayer settled 2861 product liability cases for 1.09 billion for its cholesterol medicine cerivastatin (Baycol), which was linked to 100 deaths and withdrawn from market in 2001. In July 2004, the company settled 2771 cases for 1.06 billion. Bayer still has 7577 additional cases to settle (see Section 28.4.4.5 for additional information). In another example, a 1 billion jury verdict was upheld against Wyeth for its fenfluramine or dexfenfluramine and phentermine (Fen-Phen) drug combination, which was linked to primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH). Wyeth has set aside 16.6 billion to cover future liability on the drug (see Section 28.4.4.2 for more on this case). ... 

In the early 1960s, drug companies began to lobby for government indemnity for the vaccines they developed, tested, and produced. Because so many people are vaccinated at one time, particularly school-age children, ADRs from a vaccine can carry considerable liability. As more diseases have become vaccine-preventable, more ADRs have been reported. In 1974, impetus for indemnity increased when the courts upheld a jury verdict of 200,000 for a child who developed polio from the Sabin live-polio vaccine. ... 

Peterson, Mark. 1986. A Summary of Research Results Trends and Patterns in Civil Jury Verdicts. Santa Monica RAND Corporation. 

May 14 A Texas appeals court overturns the jury verdict of Ernst v. Merck. The jury had ruled against Merck, the maker of Vioxx, but the appeals court concludes that the evidence is insufficient to show that the drug caused the death of the husband of the woman who sued. 

Shanley, M. G., and Peterson, M. A., Comparative Justice Civil Jury Verdicts in San Francisco and Cook Counties, 1959-1980 (Santa Monica, CA The Rand Corporation, 1983). 

If the relationships between the previous employer, who owns trade secrets, the departing employee, and his new employer degenerate to the position that court action appears imminent, that action may well be taken in a state court or a federal court applying state law, and a jury may make the decision. A jury sometimes gives specific answers to specific interrogatories but usually delivers a verdict on the evidence without explanation. It is difficult, therefore, to predict what a jury will hold. It is also difficult to reason from the verdict in one case to another. 

But the jury divided up the blame, saying that Freeman was 50% responsible, the doctor 30% responsible, and the Upjohn Company 20% responsible. However, the verdict was later appealed and overturned. ... 

When he found out that the case had been secretly settled and that the plaintiff and defense attorneys had lied to him, Judge Potter tried to amend the official outcome of the case from dismissed by the jury without prejudice to settled with prejudice. The judge s attorney stated, There was a payment of money to withhold evidence (Wolfe, 1995). Initially, an appeals court overruled Judge Potter on the grounds that too much time had elapsed before his attempt to change the verdict (Varchaver, 1995 Wolfe, 1995), but the judge won his appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky (Gibeaut, 1996). 

For example, the verdict of the Schwurgericht [jury court] of Frankfurt am Main stated that there is no evidence as to the crime, its victims, the murder weapon, nor even the perpetrators themselves Ref. 50/4 Ks 2/63 cf. I. Sagel-Grande, H. H. Fuchs, C. F. Ritter (eds.), Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, v. XXI, University Press, Amsterdam 1979, p. 434. 

After a 12 day trial, the jury of 12 men took less than 2h to reach a unanimous verdict of guilty. Palmer was sentenced to death for the murder of John Parsons Cook, and was publicly hanged in Stafford on of June 14, 1856, at the age of 31, still protesting his innocence. 

On July 9, 1857 the jury returned a verdict of not proven on the charge of murder (a verdict unique to... 

Some Frye proponents also contend that admission of evidence or opinions unsupported by the scientific or medical community opens the courtroom door to any expert willing to testify on a party s behalf. Consequently, juries may award large verdicts based on evidence which is fundamentally flawed. These awards, in turn, may lead to an avalanche of litigation and endless, baseless claims . Furthermore, recent problems of availability and affordability of insurance have been attributed to controversial scientific and medical opinions admitted into evidence. 

While Stevens carried on selhng his remedy, he felt an increasing impact of the BMA publication, impairing his sales in the UK and his attempts to take his remedy abroad. In 1912 he brought libel action against the BMA, an unprecedented step. While in the first trial the jury could not agree on a verdict, he was defeated in 1914, when despite numerous expert witnesses for Stevens, the jury found in favour of the BMA (supported by a recently published government report), the case was dismissed and Stevens ordered to pay the costs of 2,000. Both trials were extensively covered in both national and international press (23-31). An appeal in 1915 was refused. 

Upon completion of the closing arguments, the verdict of the jury, or the finding of the court in actions tried without a jury, is rendered, and the court then directs the entry of what it believes to be the appropriate judgment under the law. 

---