This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Murphy (P)'s mother took DES while pregnant with P. P suffered injuries as a result of the drug. P sued Exclusive Prescription Pharmacy Corporation (D) (where P's mother purchased the drug) and E.R. Squibb & Sons, INC. (D) (the manufacturer of the drug) for damages on the theory of strict liability, alleging that the drug was defectively designed. Before the jury was selected, the court granted Exclusive (D)'s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that a pharmacy may not be held strictly liable for dispensing a prescription drug. The court determined that Exclusive (D) rendered a professional service in supplying the DES, and that the consumer of the drug was the doctor who prescribed it rather than P's mother, and that as a matter of policy, the doctrine of strict liability should not be extended to a pharmacy. P appealed, claiming that a pharmacy is the same as a retailer of any other consumer product, and retailers are usually strictly liable in tort.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.