This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Glenn suffered a double hernia, as well as frostbite of two fingers, while working as a carpenter. He was 49 years old and was not a user of drugs or alcohol. His hernia was successfully repaired. Skin grafts were done on the fingers, but it was necessary to amputate part of his thumb in November and part of his middle finger the following January (1968). The doctors who had treated him had prescribed both Demerol (a narcotic) and Talwin for relief of pain without observing any cause to believe him to be addicted to any drug. Glenn told Dr. Palafox that he liked the relief he received from Talwin, and Dr. Palafox responded that this was fortunate because Talwin had no addictive side effects. Glenn developed an addiction to Talwin. He was able to obtain prescriptions from several doctors as well as to cross the Mexican border to Juarez and acquire the same drug without a prescription under the name of 'Sosigon.' He was hospitalized by a psychiatrist, Dr. J. Edward Stern, for a process of detoxification and treatment of his drug dependency. After six days in the hospital, being withdrawn from Talwin as well as all narcotics, Glenn walked out of the hospital and went to his home. Glenn was in an agitated condition and made threats against P, his wife. He had P call Dr. Eugene Engel, who came to the home and gave Glenn an injection of Demerol. Glenn died that night. P, Glenn's widow, brought this action for damages due to his suffering while alive as well as for his wrongful death. D had put Talwin on the market in July of 1967 after extensive testing and approval by the Federal Drug Administration. D gave no warning of the possibilities of addiction. Dr. Palafox was told that Talwin was as harmless as aspirin and could be given as long as desired. Doctors Palafox and Stern had seen other patients dependent upon Talwin. Dr. Arthur S. Keats, chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at Baylor School of Medicine in Houston, who did original work on the drug and who testified during this trial on the call of the drug company, agreed with the attorney for P that 'there are a tremendous number of people who do develop a Talwin addiction.' The jury found that D failed to advise the public during the year 1967 that its drug Talwin could cause physical dependence, which made the drug unreasonably dangerous as marketed in 1967. It found that Talwin was the proximate cause of Glenn’s death. P got the judgment, and D appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for D, holding that D could not reasonably have foreseen Glenn's addiction (because of his unusual susceptibility and the state of medical knowledge when the drug was marketed), and this constituted a complete defense. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.