Wennerholm

Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine

Good Law
1942 Cal. LEXIS 329·20 Cal. 2d 713·128 P.2d 522·141 A.L.R. 1358
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 19, 1942S. F. No. 16648California2,214 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gibson, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants after an order sustaining defendants’ demurrers to the fifth amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ original and first four amended complaints charged the defendants with negligence. In these complaints it was alleged that the plaintiff, Cecilia Wennerholm, consulted her family physician in regard to her obesity and that he prescribed dinitrophenol for her on a written prescription which was filled by a pharmacy. While under the care of her physician, plaintiff took the drug, which was manufactured by one of the defendants. As a result thereof, it was alleged, she lost her sight. Plaintiffs charged that the defendants published statements in medical journals and elsewhere that dinitrophenol was harmless; that these statements were read and relied upon by plaintiff and her physician; that defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous character of the drug but negligently failed to disclose that fact; and that, by reason of the negligence, fault and want of care of defendants, plaintiff suffered the loss of sight of both her eyes.

The fifth amended complaint charges the defendants with fraud. It…

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.