In a closely watched case (see Jun. 30), Maryland's highest court declined to create a new duty of drugmakers toward third parties who might be injured by persons who take their drugs. The case arose after a diabetic driver who had been prescribed an Eli Lilly insulin product suffered an adverse reaction and ran into the vehicle of a prominent Prince George's County, Md. politician, killing him. The case raised several other issues of which one was pre-emption, as Beck and Herrmann explain. (Examiner; decision, PDF courtesy NAM).
Update: Gourdine v. Crews
Related Entries:
- Greg Conko: Can brand makers be sued for generic drug injuries?
- Romney and self-deporting
- Greg Conko discusses the FDA's ban on off-label promotion
- Another lawless jackpot award over propofol in Nevada
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Rehearing sought in Mensing
- Around the web, June 5
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- Martin Act abuses
- "Abnormal Use" interview
- Lasker on preemption
- Around the web, March 28
- Teva and Baxter appeal $505 million Nevada propofol verdict
- Breaking: unanimous vote against preemption in Williamson v. Mazda
- Tort reform and federalism
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



