Huggins v. Longs Drugs Stores California, Inc.

6 Cal.4th 124 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps are the parents of Kodee Huggins (Kodee), born August 14, 1989. A doctor who was treating Kodee for an ear infection issued a prescription for Ceclor, to be administered every eight hours in doses of '2.5 cc's,' which is equivalent to one-half teaspoon. On October 9, 1989, Ps asked Longs' (D) pharmacist to fill a prescription for a medication, Ceclor, to be given to Kodee in stated amounts. The pharmacist misstated the treating physician's directions, thereby causing a severe overdosage and consequent injury to the minor. The wrong directions called for two and a half teaspoons or five times the amount prescribed by the doctor. Kodee was given the medicine and when he was picked up from daycare P noticed that he was lethargic and unresponsive. P discovered later that night that there was a mistake in the dosage. P's alleged that this caused them to suffer emotional distress and consequent damages. Ps sued for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A third cause of action is based on a 'direct victim' theory of negligently caused emotional distress. It alleges that D's conduct breached D's duties arising out of 'the customer/pharmacist/pharmacy and other similar relationship between Ps and Ds.' The fourth and final cause of action seeks recovery for negligently caused emotional distress on a 'bystander' theory, alleging emotional distress from observing Kodee's crying and distress during and after administration of the erroneous overdose. D moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues, seeking a ruling that Ps have failed to establish the elements of a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's rejection of Ps' 'bystander' claim for emotional distress resulting from their observation of the injury to Kodee from the overdose, but reversed the trial court's rejection of Ps' claim to recovery as 'direct victims.' The court theorized that when a pharmacist knows or should know, that a prescription is for an infant or other helpless patient, the pharmacist's duty of care extends not only to the patient but also to the patient's parent or other closely related caregiver who administers the medication as prescribed. This appeal resulted.