Words: 348
McNeil failed to identify this information on the label and provide instructions identifying this information to for the consumer to properly use the medication. 3. Do you think Jurors are sophisticated enough to evaluate and Judge scientific evidence? With this case, I really did not feel that the Jury needed to know additional medical information the facts brought out in trial clearly showed that McNeil was aware of the dangers.
As for other cases, I believe that it should be up to the attorneys to fully break down the information so that the average person can understand it. As I stated above a negligent act has 3 basic areas, prove those areas and you can prove the case without technical information. Ethics 4. Did McNeil act ethically in failing to put a warning on Ethylene? No I do not believe they did. I really think that McNeil thought that they might scare away the buying public.
They provided a product that reports/memos that they had on hand showed relationship showing damage when their product was mixed with alcohol. 5. Do you think a warning was warranted? Yes, failure to acknowledge the warning constitutes intentional misrepresentation. In this case McNeil was aware of the dangers and chose to do nothing. Business Applications 6. What will be the implication of this case to manufactures of pain-killing drugs? The dollar figure more than anything else will send a signal to other manufactures.
I think that you might have more companies quit doing research after a product asses the FDA or they will step up their efforts in informing the public though labels or in the instructions. Bomb 380, Business Law I By invoking If the companies quit doing research then no, however, I think that other companies would probably take an existing product and improve on it. Which would be about the same thing as continuing research. As for providing information on the labels, if consumers pay attention to the labels, then yes I think we’ll be better off if corporations provide the information.