adequacy warning in Pennsylvania

2020Id. at 24-26. “[W]here the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue, the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to warn of dangers, i.e., the manufacturer’s negligence, is the only recognized basis of liability.” Hahn v. Richter, 673 A.2d 888, 891 (Pa. 1996).

2020Id. at 24-26. “[W]here the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue, the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to warn of dangers, i.e., the manufacturer’s negligence, is the only recognized basis of liability.” Hahn v. Richter, 673 A.2d 888, 891 (Pa. 1996).

2005See Hahn v. Richter, 543 Pa. 558, 563 , 673 A.2d 888, 891 (1996) (“[Wjhere the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue, the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to warn of dangers, i.e., the manufacturer’s negligence, is the only recognized basis of liability.”); Baldino v. Castagna, 505 Pa. 239, 244 , 478 A.2d 807, 810 (1984) (“[Ajssuming proper preparation and warning, a manufacturer of drugs is not strictly liable for unfortunate consequences attending the use of otherwise useful and desirable products which are attended with a known but appare

2005See Hahn v. Richter, 543 Pa. 558, 563 , 673 A.2d 888, 891 (1996) (“[Wjhere the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue, the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to warn of dangers, i.e., the manufacturer’s negligence, is the only recognized basis of liability.”); Baldino v. Castagna, 505 Pa. 239, 244 , 478 A.2d 807, 810 (1984) (“[Ajssuming proper preparation and warning, a manufacturer of drugs is not strictly liable for unfortunate consequences attending the use of otherwise useful and desirable products which are attended with a known but appare

2004Inc., 812 F. Supp. 492, 497 (M.D.

2003See Nowak, 812 F. Supp. at 496 (refusing to find misuse as a matter of law and holding that a jury could find a consumer’s puncturing of a hair spray can as foreseeable since “the warnings on the can specifically advised against puncturing and avoiding proximity to a flame and, consequently, it is difficult to understand how the manufacturer can claim that the puncturing in this case near a flame was unforeseeable.”) As stated above, Glodzik’s failure to read Whink’s label does not foreclose recovery since she is challenging the adequacy of that warning.

1982See also, Commonwealth v. Jones, 228 Pa.Superior. 789, 315 A.2d 280 (1974) (J-355 of 1973); Commonwealth v. Porter, 449 Pa, 153, 295 A.2d 311 (1972); Commonwealth v. Moses, 446 Pa. 350 , 287 A.2d 131 (1971); Commonwealth v. Darden, 441 Pa. 41 , 271 A.2d 257 (1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1004 , 91 S.Ct. 1243 , 28 L.Ed.2d 540 (1971).

1975See also, Commonwealth v. Jones,-Pa. -, 315 A.2d 280 (1974) (J-355 of 1973); Commonwealth v. Porter, 449 Pa. 153 , 295 A.2d 311 (1972); Commonwealth v. Moses, 446 Pa. 350 , 287 A.2d 131 (1971); Commonwealth v. Darden, 441 Pa. 41 , 271 A.2d 257 (1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1004 , 91 S.Ct. 1243 , 28 L.Ed.2d 540 (1971).

1973See also, Sterling Drug v. Yarrow, 408 F. 2d 978 (8th Cir. 1969); Pritch-ard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 295 F. 2d 292 (3d Cir. 1961).

1971Cf. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Yarrow, 408 F. 2d 978, 993 (C.A. 8th Cir. 1969).

2011Wyeth also relies upon Dion v. Graduate Hospital of University of Pennsylvania, 360 Pa.Super. 416 , 520 A.2d 876 (1987), in which we affirmed a trial court’s grant of a non-suit because the plaintiff did not introduce expert testimony on the adequacy of the drug’s warning label, and, in general, “only physicians or others with similar education and experience regarding prescription drugs would be qualified to testify as to the adequacy of the warning.” Id. at 879 (emphasis added).

2011Wyeth also relies upon Dion v. Graduate Hospital of University of Pennsylvania, 360 Pa.Super. 416 , 520 A.2d 876 (1987), in which we affirmed a trial court’s grant of a non-suit because the plaintiff did not introduce expert testimony on the adequacy of the drug’s warning label, and, in general, “only physicians or others with similar education and experience regarding prescription drugs would be qualified to testify as to the adequacy of the warning.” Id. at 879 (emphasis added).

1982See also, Commonwealth v. Goodwin, supra. In addition, we have recognized that where the accused is a child of tender years closer scrutiny must be given in determining the adequacy of the waiver. “. . . [T]hat where the person involved is of tender years, the attending circumstances must be scrutinized with special care before an intelligent and knowing waiver is declared.” Commonwealth v. Fogan, supra, 449 Pa. at 558, 296 A.2d at 758 .

1982See also, Commonwealth v. Goodwin, supra. In addition, we have recognized that where the accused is a child of tender years closer scrutiny must be given in determining the adequacy of the waiver. “. . . [T]hat where the person involved is of tender years, the attending circumstances must be scrutinized with special care before an intelligent and knowing waiver is declared.” Commonwealth v. Fogan, supra, 449 Pa. at 558, 296 A.2d at 758 .

2023(Id. at 59-60 (citing Skeen, 505 N.W.2d at 315 ).) Petitioners assert that the court in Skeen “was not being asked to evaluate an adequacy claim, but rather a challenge to ‘the particular means employed to finance state education,’” so the 740 court applied the rational basis test.

2023Id. at 322 (Page, J., concurring in part and dissenting in the judgment). 122 Recently, Minnesota’s high court allowed an adequacy challenge to its education system to go forward, holding that the adequacy question is justiciable under both the education clause and state equal protection.

2023See Cruz-Guzman, 916 N.W.2d at 10-12 .

2023See Commonwealth v. Smith, 206 A.3d 551, 565 (Pa. Super. 2019) (expressing same point of view but assuming, arguendo, that a challenge to the validity of a conviction under this felony corruption of minors statute constituted a non-waivable challenge to the legality of the sentence).5 Notwithstanding, accepting that we may review this claim despite a failure to challenge the adequacy of the instruction, we must address the fact that this instruction does reference two Chapter 31 offenses, one of which resulted in an acquittal.

2023See, e.g., Morath, 490 S.W.3d at 863 (“Because the adequacy standard ‘is plainly result- oriented,’[] the proper focus on a constitutional adequacy analysis should be on outputs that measure student performance.”) (quoting Neeley v. W.

2023See Commonwealth - 11 - J-S20024-23 v. Page, 965 A.2d 1212, 1222 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2021Commonwealth v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638, 661 (Pa. 2009).

2018Gracyalny , 723 F.2d at 1318 .

2018Compare id. at 1321 , with Alvarado v. Sersch , 2003 WI 55 , 29, 262 Wis.2d 74 , 662 N.W.2d 350 (summary judgment in negligence is proper where no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find defendant was negligent).

2018Compare id. at 1321 , with Alvarado v. Sersch , 2003 WI 55 , 29, 262 Wis.2d 74 , 662 N.W.2d 350 (summary judgment in negligence is proper where no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find defendant was negligent).

2018Compare id. at 1321 , with Alvarado v. Sersch , 2003 WI 55 , 29, 262 Wis.2d 74 , 662 N.W.2d 350 (summary judgment in negligence is proper where no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find defendant was negligent).

2015See Commonwealth v. Charleston, 16 A.3d 505, 528 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 486 (Pa. 2011) (requiring a defendant to object to a cautionary instruction if he believes it is -6- J-S02025-15 inadequate).

2015See Commonwealth v. Charleston, 16 A.3d 505, 528 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 486 (Pa. 2011) (requiring a defendant to object to a cautionary instruction if he believes it is -6- J-S02025-15 inadequate).

2013See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 2687 n. 12, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Commonwealth v. Puksar, 597 Pa. 240, 275 , 951 A.2d 267, 288 (2008) (differentiating between mental competence to waive mitigation, and the validity of the waiver as assessed by the adequacy of the waiver colloquy); accord State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696, 730 (2005).

2013See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 2687 n. 12, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Commonwealth v. Puksar, 597 Pa. 240, 275 , 951 A.2d 267, 288 (2008) (differentiating between mental competence to waive mitigation, and the validity of the waiver as assessed by the adequacy of the waiver colloquy); accord State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696, 730 (2005).

2013See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 2687 n. 12, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Commonwealth v. Puksar, 597 Pa. 240, 275 , 951 A.2d 267, 288 (2008) (differentiating between mental competence to waive mitigation, and the validity of the waiver as assessed by the adequacy of the waiver colloquy); accord State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696, 730 (2005).

2013See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 2687 n. 12, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Commonwealth v. Puksar, 597 Pa. 240, 275 , 951 A.2d 267, 288 (2008) (differentiating between mental competence to waive mitigation, and the validity of the waiver as assessed by the adequacy of the waiver colloquy); accord State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696, 730 (2005).

2013See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 2687 n. 12, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Commonwealth v. Puksar, 597 Pa. 240, 275 , 951 A.2d 267, 288 (2008) (differentiating between mental competence to waive mitigation, and the validity of the waiver as assessed by the adequacy of the waiver colloquy); accord State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696, 730 (2005).

2013See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 2687 n. 12, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Commonwealth v. Puksar, 597 Pa. 240, 275 , 951 A.2d 267, 288 (2008) (differentiating between mental competence to waive mitigation, and the validity of the waiver as assessed by the adequacy of the waiver colloquy); accord State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696, 730 (2005).