Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 177 views

    Hollis V Dow Corning Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Alice Jiang
    This case involved Hollis suing Dow Corning Corporation for failing to adequately warn of risks associated with their silicone breast implants. Specifically, Dow failed to warn Hollis and her surgeon, Dr. Birch, of the risk that the implants could rupture inside her body. One of Hollis' implants had ruptured, releasing silicone gel inside her. The court found that Dow breached its duty to warn by not informing of this risk even after becoming aware of implant ruptures. While Dow was not found negligent in manufacturing, the appeal was dismissed as Dow failed to properly warn Hollis of known risks, as manufacturers have a duty to warn of product dangers discovered after sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hollis V Dow Corning Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Alice Jiang
    177 views2 pages
    This case involved Hollis suing Dow Corning Corporation for failing to adequately warn of risks associated with their silicone breast implants. Specifically, Dow failed to warn Hollis and her surgeon, Dr. Birch, of the risk that the implants could rupture inside her body. One of Hollis' implants had ruptured, releasing silicone gel inside her. The court found that Dow breached its duty to warn by not informing of this risk even after becoming aware of implant ruptures. While Dow was not found negligent in manufacturing, the appeal was dismissed as Dow failed to properly warn Hollis of known risks, as manufacturers have a duty to warn of product dangers discovered after sale.

    Original Description:

    Law Precedent case analysis

    Original Title

    Hollis v Dow Corning Corporation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved Hollis suing Dow Corning Corporation for failing to adequately warn of risks associated with their silicone breast implants. Specifically, Dow failed to warn Hollis and her surgeon, Dr. Birch, of the risk that the implants could rupture inside her body. One of Hollis' implants had ruptured, releasing silicone gel inside her. The court found that Dow breached its duty to warn by not informing of this risk even after becoming aware of implant ruptures. While Dow was not found negligent in manufacturing, the appeal was dismissed as Dow failed to properly warn Hollis of known risks, as manufacturers have a duty to warn of product dangers discovered after sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    177 views2 pages

    Hollis V Dow Corning Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Alice Jiang
    This case involved Hollis suing Dow Corning Corporation for failing to adequately warn of risks associated with their silicone breast implants. Specifically, Dow failed to warn Hollis and her surgeon, Dr. Birch, of the risk that the implants could rupture inside her body. One of Hollis' implants had ruptured, releasing silicone gel inside her. The court found that Dow breached its duty to warn by not informing of this risk even after becoming aware of implant ruptures. While Dow was not found negligent in manufacturing, the appeal was dismissed as Dow failed to properly warn Hollis of known risks, as manufacturers have a duty to warn of product dangers discovered after sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CASE TITLE Hollis (respondents) v Dow Corning Corporation (appellant)

    (PARTIES
    INVOLVED)

    ISSUE Was there a duty to warn (plastic surgeon who conducted the surgery)?
    • Was Dow liable to Hollis for failing to warn Dr. Birch adequately
    for the risk of a post-surgical implant rupture?

    LAW Negligence = failure to behave with the level of care that someone of
    ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances
    • Behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of
    omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help
    victims of one's previous conduct).

    Negligent Manufacture

    APPLICATION Facts - Holly


    • Hollis got breast implant surgery to fix a congenital deformity
    (1984) and her surgeon, Dr. Birch, failed to warn her about risks of
    post-surgical complications and possibility that the implants might
    rupture inside her body
    • 1 year later, after exerting energy from her upper body while
    baking, she discovered a lump in R breast & it was painful
    • She got the implant removed by another surgeon who discovered
    that while the L was intact, the R had ruptured → he removed the
    gel from the R implant but couldn’t find the envelope, thereafter,
    Hollis’s physical condition got worse
    • 1987: visited a 3rd surgeon and had a successful subcutaneous
    mastectomy on both breasts & opted for a new diff model of breast
    implants

    Facts - Dr. Birch


    • Had little warning from implant manufacturer regarding possibility
    of implants’ rupturing
    • Failure to warn: as early as 1979, Dow was aware of the
    implications of implants’ rupturing; all warnings up to 1979 made no
    reference to rupture occurring from anything less than “abnormal
    squeezing or trauma” BREACH OF DUTY TO WARN
    • 1 year after Hollis’ surgery, 1985 warning referred to the dangers of
    “enlarged lymph nodes, scar formation, inflammation” & potential,
    after a rupture, for “distant migration of the gel”

    General facts
    • At trial in 1989, Hollis successfully claimed against Dow for
    negligent manufacture of breast implant & was awarded damages
    & costs; rest of her claims were dismissed

    A manufacturer of a product has a continuing duty in tort to warn


    consumers of dangers it knows or ought to know are inherent in the
    product's use
    • requiring manufacturers to warn not only of dangers known at
    the time of sale, but also of dangers discovered after the product
    has been sold and delivered
    • All warnings must be reasonably communicated, and must
    clearly describe any specific dangers that arise from the ordinary
    use of the product.

    CONCLUSION Appeal was dismissed.

    • Dow's failure to warn caused Hollis’ injury;


    • Ms. Hollis, who encountered great informational inequality in
    regards to both the manufacturer and the doctor, played no part
    in creating the set of causal conditions leading to her injury
    • Justice dictates that she should not be penalized for the fact that
    had the manufacturer actually met its duty to warn, the doctor
    still might have been at fault

    • Disagreed that Dow had negligently manufactured the implant, but


    dismissed appeal on ground that Dow failed to warn Hollis
    adequately about the risks of rupture
    • Warnings of the dangers of silicone breast implants should be
    given to physicians who would perform the implant operation; if this
    had been done, a direct warning to the public might’ve been
    unnecessary
    • Majority of Court of Appeal enabled Hollis’ appeal from the
    dismissal of her action against Birch and ordered a new trial in
    respect of that claim

    You might also like