## Facts

- Four-year-old Valerie Hahn ingested about 1.5 ounces of Campho-Phenique, an over-the-counter topical analgesic manufactured by Sterling Drug, Inc.
- About 30 minutes later, she experienced convulsions, vomiting, and temporarily stopped breathing; she was hospitalized overnight in intensive care and released within about 24 hours without permanent disability.
- Earlier that evening, Valerie’s parents allowed an older child to use the product; the cap was misplaced, and the older child may have administered the medicine to Valerie.
- The parents sued alleging the product was defective because (1) the label warning was inadequate and (2) the product lacked a child-resistant cap.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that the warning was general, in relatively small type, did not clearly convey serious toxicity or specific consequences (e.g., seizures), and that directions suggesting use “on the gums” could weaken the “external use” message.
- Plaintiffs also offered evidence that Sterling knew of prior child-ingestion incidents but did not strengthen the warning (e.g., by using “poison” or similarly explicit language).
- Sterling presented expert testimony that the label adequately warned consumers to keep the product away from children and to seek immediate professional assistance upon ingestion.
- The parents separately sought damages for their own emotional distress arising from the child’s medical emergency.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly directed a verdict for the manufacturer on the ground that the product’s warning was adequate as a matter of law, foreclosing the child’s product-defect claims (including the child-resistant-cap theory).
2. Whether Georgia law permits the parents to recover for their own emotional distress arising from injury to their child absent physical injury to the parents.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the directed verdict on the child’s product-liability claims and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence favorably to plaintiffs, reasonable jurors could disagree on whether the warning sufficiently informed ordinary consumers of the hazard and whether the product was defective.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the parents’ emotional-distress claims under Georgia law.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is improper if, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, reasonable jurors could reach different conclusions.
- In product-liability cases, the adequacy of a warning is commonly a fact question for the jury when the record contains conflicting evidence about the warning’s content, prominence, and tendency to convey or obscure the seriousness of the risk.
- Evidence that a manufacturer knew of prior serious incidents and that label language or directions could mislead consumers can support submission of warning-adequacy and defect claims to the jury.
- Under Georgia law, emotional-distress damages for a bystander parent are generally not recoverable absent physical injury to the parent or a recognized exception.

## Conclusion

The court held that the child’s claims based on inadequate warnings and related defect theories could not be resolved by directed verdict because the evidence created a jury question, but it rejected the parents’ separate emotional-distress claims as not compensable under Georgia law on the facts presented.


Hahn v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 805 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1986)