Products Liability – Pharmaceutical; Causation 
Posted: 1:00 am Mon, February 8, 2010
By admin
Where plaintiff has experienced redness, scratchiness, and pain in his eyes since using eye drops which he purchased in a package of single-use vials; laboratory testing detected a type of yeast in the eye drops; and the optometrist who examined plaintiff and whom plaintiff intended to call at trial found that there was no evidence of infection in plaintiff’s eyes and that natural aging, diet, exercise, and other diseases were possible causes of plaintiff’s eye condition; we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendants because the question of causation in this case requires an expert opinion, and plaintiff did not made a prima facie showing of causation.
We reject the additional claims of error but remand for statutorily-required findings on plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Motion denied.
| Case Number | A09-0109, A09-0841 |
| Case Name | Szanto v. Target Corp. |
| Court | Court of Appeals |
| County | Hennepin County |
| Category | Products Liability |
| Type | Unpublished Civil Opinions |
| URL | http://www.minnlawyer.com/userfiles/pdf/OPa090109-0202.htm |
![[Print]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[Facebook]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)


POST A COMMENT