California Was Wrong Not To Recant Conte
Yesterday the California Supreme Court refused to accept review of the nonplussing decision in Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., in which the California Court of Appeal held that a pharmaceutical manufacturer could be liable for failure to warn of risks associated with a generic drug that it neither manufactured nor sold.
Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann give a characteristically thorough and compelling explanation for why the Court of Appeal's Conte decision was wrong as a matter of both law and public policy. They also point out -- thankfully -- that under California law, the Conte decision has little, if any, stare decisis effect on other panels of the Court of Appeal who consider the same issue.
One wonders, however, whether the Justices ever considered the practical effects of the Conte rule on lawyers' advice to their clients. After Conte, how do deal lawyers involved in pharmaceutical transactions accurately quantify and evaluate liability risks? Thoughts, readers?
