Torts Keyed to Goldberg
Motus v. Pfizer Inc.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
On November 6, 1998, Victor Motus’doctor, Gerald Trostler, prescribed Motus the antidepressant Zoloft becauseMotus disclosed personal problems resulting in unhappiness and difficulty sleeping. Trostler made Motus a prescription thatgave him a sample packet of Zoloft, which Trostler received from a representative of Pfizer Inc., Defendant, the drug’s manufacturer. The sample, itself, did not contain any warnings. Nonetheless, the box of samples Defendant gave to Trostler may have included a warning, but Trostler could not recall.Even if the sample box contained warning, Trostler never read any warnings provided by Pfizer. If Trostler did read the warning,Trostler would have known that some patients on Zoloft had attempted suicide while on the Zoloft trials. Zoloft, itself, was not the cause of the attempted suicide necessarily, but high supervision was recommended for high-risk patients. Nonetheless, Trostler prescribed Zoloft to Motusdueto his personal experience and information he received from journal articles. Trostler had previously met with Pfizer representatives but he could remember what they spoke about in regards to Zoloft. What Trostler was aware of, was that antidepressants are in the same category as Zoloft were been associated with a higher risk of suicide, but he rejected those studies based on his experience. On November 12, 1998, Motus committed suicide. During the six days that Motus was taking Zoloft, Trostler was not informed that Motus was having adverse reactions to the drug. Motus’s widow, Flora Motus, Plaintiff, brought suit against Pfizer claiming that it was liable for failing to adequately warn Zoloft could cause suicide. At Trostler’s deposition, Plaintiff never inquired into whether Trostler would have changed his treatment of Motus had Pfizer given him a specific warning about the risk of suicide. Pfizer motioned for summary judgment.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.