California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Hufft v. Horowitz, 4 Cal.App.4th 8, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 (Cal. App. 1992):
8 We are aware the manufacturer markets the product through physicians and discharges its duty to warn by giving them information of risks and dangers. (Carmichael v. Reitz, supra, 17 Cal.App.3d at p. 989, 95 Cal.Rptr. 381.) However, that is not necessarily determinative of the consumer expectations issue. We have little doubt the general public shares a common knowledge that the penile prosthesis and other implanted medical products offer cosmetic changes. The consumer's reasonable expectations are not confined to those arising from information disseminated by the manufacturer or distributor of the product.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.