Abstract
I. Introduction
II. Background ... A. McDaniel v. McNeil Laboratories, Inc. … B. General Product Liability in Nebraska—the Transition to Freeman
III. Analysis ... A. Technical Analysis of the Freeman Decision ... 1. New Nebraska Law: Section 402A, Comment k, and the Learned Intermediary Doctrine ... a. Working Definitions of Both Tests ... b. Differences Between the Standards ... 2. Application of Section 6(c) and Section 2(b) to Prescription Drugs ... a. Section 6(c) ... b. Section 2(b) ... B. Freeman Was an Insightful Decision .... 1. McDaniel to Freeman—Righting a Wrong ... 2. Freeman: A More Precise and Protective Standard ... 3. Not Too Much, Not Too Little, but Just Right … a. Section 6(c) Does Not Accurately Restate the Law ... b. The Reasonable Physician—an Unreasonable Standard ... c. Cosmetic vs. Therapeutic ... d. Ease of Claim Dismissal ... 4. 2(b) or Not 2(b) ... C. Possible Reasons for the Court's Decision ... D. Projections of the Future Social and Legal Impact of Freeman … 1. Legal ... 2. Social ... a. Better Warnings and Testing ... b. More Aware and Attentive Doctors ... E. Life After Freeman—What Lawyers Should Expect … 1. Plaintiffs' Attorneys ... a. Pleading and Proof ... b. The Effect of the Learned Intermediary ... c. The Focus of the Litigation ... 2. Defense Attorneys ... a. Lawyers Representing Manufacturers ... b. The Workload: Not More, Just Shifted ... 3. Innovation—The Linchpin of a Successful Practice
IV. Conclusion
Recommended Citation
James L. Beckmann,
Prescription Drugs and Strict Liability: Evaluating Nebraska's New Posture in Freeman v. Hoffman La-Roche, Inc., 260 Neb. 552, 618 N.W.2d 827 (2000),
80 Neb. L. Rev.
(2001)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol80/iss3/6