Hufft

Hufft v. Horowitz

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 251·4 Cal. App. 4th 8·5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377·92 Daily Journal DAR 2834·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1849
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 1992G010372California6,571 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

Larry D. Hufft appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of American Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS) in a product liability action involving an allegedly defective inflatable penile prosthesis. Hufft contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because triable issues of material fact exist as to all causes of action. In our review, we must decide whether the rule of Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 751 P.2d 470 ], immunizing manufacturers of prescription drugs from strict liability for design defects, should be extended to manufacturers of implanted prescription medical devices. Brown holds, “[A] manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries caused by a prescription drug so long as the drug was properly prepared and accompanied by warnings of its dangerous propensities that were either known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the time of distribution.” (Id. at p. 1069, fn. omitted.)

As will be seen, we believe the compelling public policy reasons articulated by the Brown court with regard to prescription drugs apply with equal force when the product is an implanted medical device. Thus, following Brown’s lead,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.