Also known as: Warn Act · Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An obligation to inform a person of a dangerous condition or risk that the actor knows or should know the person is unlikely to discover. The obligation arises for land possessors toward known trespassers and for manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices toward prescribing physicians.
An obligation to inform a person of a dangerous condition or risk that the actor knows or should know the person is unlikely to discover. The obligation arises for land possessors toward known trespassers and for manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices toward prescribing physicians.
The required statements that police must give to a person in custody before interrogation, informing the person of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.
The required statements that police must give to a person in custody before interrogation, informing the person of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Wade Watson enters Windham Technologies property at night to retrieve a lost tool. The company knows of an unmarked excavation pit that has caused serious injuries to others. No signs or barriers alert Watson to the pit. He falls in and sustains a broken leg. The company faces liability for failing to warn him of the condition.
Winston West's doctor prescribes a medication manufactured by Walker Valley Produce. The manufacturer supplies the doctor with complete risk information about potential liver damage. Winston later suffers liver failure and sues the manufacturer for failing to warn him directly. The manufacturer avoids liability because the warning to the physician was adequate.
Winter Wolfe confronts an attacker who threatens serious injury. Wolfe uses a level of force that a reasonable person would recognize could cause permanent loss of limb function. The court evaluates whether the intended harm qualifies as serious bodily harm under the governing standard.
Willa Whitman receives a medical implant from Warwick Electronics. The company provides the implanting physician with full warnings about infection risks. Whitman develops an infection and claims the manufacturer failed to warn her personally. Liability does not attach because the duty runs to the physician.
Winston Ward's physician implants a device made by Wrightway Engineering. The manufacturer gives the physician generalized risk data. Ward sues after complications arise, offering only evidence that the physician knew of risks in the abstract. The claim fails because no proof shows that a better warning would have changed the prescribing decision.
3 common questions
Yes. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, the manufacturer's duty to warn runs to the physician rather than the patient. The physician evaluates risks and benefits for the individual patient, so adequate warnings to the physician break the causal chain to the patient.
Supporting sources
A possessor must exercise reasonable care to warn a known trespasser of an artificial condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm and that the trespasser is unlikely to discover. Failure to provide such a warning creates liability for resulting physical harm.
Supporting sources
A plaintiff must prove that the warning given to the physician was inadequate or misleading and that an adequate warning would have altered the physician's prescribing decision. Generalized evidence that the physician knew of risks in the abstract is insufficient.
Supporting sources
Wanda Weaver is arrested and placed in a police car. Officers question her about a robbery without advising her of the right to remain silent or to counsel. She makes incriminating statements. The statements are suppressed because the required advisements were never given.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View case…(1963). In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Without this additional warning, the admonition…