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

Upjohn (D) manufactured the drug Cleocin, which was found to have serious side effects. D sent warning information regarding these side effects when they shipped the drug. Werner (P) received a prescription for Cleocin after seeing an eye doctor. As a result of taking this drug, P received injuries. P then brought suit against D under theories of negligence and strict liability. A main issue in the case was the adequacy of the warning that accompanied Cleocin in 1975. D attempted to exclude all reference to the subsequent warning. However, it was admitted to the jury on the issue of feasibility, even though it was used in the witness examination and the closing argument to show what D should have done. P was awarded damages. D appealed.

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.