Viagra, As Good as it Gets
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 00:00
By Marcel Strigberger
A 61-year-old lady in New York is suing her former 71-year-old lover for $2 million after he left her for another or rather for a number of other women. You see he was sexually inactive for years until he took a dose of the potency drug Viagra and then all hell broke loose. The couple had what the woman describes as "wonderful sex". A day or two later the gentleman decided all of this newly discovered virility was too much to bestow on only one woman.
The woman's lawyer is blaming Viagra on the sudden break-up and he likens the pill to a loaded gun. He is talking about actually also suing the drug's manufacturer.
As a litigation lawyer this is one lawsuit I would like very much to see. I can just visualize it all:
STIFF J.: This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendant pharmaceutical company for damages for mental distress and anguish. The plaintiff Roberta aged 61 lived together with her boyfriend Frank for 10 years. Four years ago Frank's sexual libido started dropping; he showed no interest in having sex. As the plaintiff put it, a night of excitement for Frank was to watch reruns of "Gilligan's Island".
On the evening in question, Frank came home carrying a vial of blue pills. When the plaintiff questioned him about the pills he said, "Dearie, I have a surprise for you."
At bedtime she noticed Frank downing a pill and sprinkling a couple of drops of Binaca onto his tongue. Within minutes Frank underwent a major transformation. His shrivelling body became muscular. His grey hair turned jet black. She swears that he even started courting her in Italian. She testifies, "He even serenaded me, whipping a mandolin out of the blue.
For the ensuing couple of hours the plaintiff describes the parties as having passionate sex seen only in the pages of the Kama Sutra.
The next day however the honeymoon was over. Frank vanished, leaving a note on the bed reading, "Sorry toots. I have a mission to accomplish."
The plaintiff alleges that her ex is now out prowling and entertaining dozens of other woman. She claims in her statement of claim filed with the court, "This guy easily surpasses the exploits of King Solomon. His Majesty couldn't hold a candle up to Frank."
She blames the defendant, the manufacturer of Viagra, for the demise of her relationship. The question is, is there liability on the manufacturer?
Her lawyer argues that the defendant ought to have put a proper warning on the label.
The defendant claims that in fact the label does display an adequate warning.
I disagree. I don't think that it is sufficient to say "Warning: Do not take before operating a motor vehicle. This pill has had curious reactions on laboratory rats driving cars."
Nor does it help the defendant's case that the pills come in a container that is in the shape of an oyster.
The defence then argues that the event was not negligent as it was not reasonably foreseeable. Defence counsel pleads, "Who would have expected the fellow to become a roaming gigolo? He has even gone so far as to incorporate his affairs into a company entitled 'Honey, It Doesn't Shrink Inc'."
In my view however the outcome was quite foreseeable. This case falls within the foreseeability principles enunciated in the landmark British case of Browning v Lord Admiral Kensington in the year 1765 where Justice Perrywinkle said these judicially immortal words:
Turning to the issue of damages, the defendant argues that the sum of 2 million dollars is much too much for this type of case. Counsel argues that the plaintiff's damages are excessive and remote. "Hey", says the learned counsel, "Lovers get jilted every day."
That may be so but this case has also attracted much embarrassment to the plaintiff. It is one thing to get dumped but quite another to have Time Magazine call you and ask, "Madam, did he really look like the Incredible Hulk?"
There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of 2 million dollars. My decision is in no way affected by the fact that the defendant is a wealthy pharmaceutical company.
Are there any offers to settle?
A 61-year-old lady in New York is suing her former 71-year-old lover for $2 million after he left her for another or rather for a number of other women. You see he was sexually inactive for years until he took a dose of the potency drug Viagra and then all hell broke loose. The couple had what the woman describes as "wonderful sex". A day or two later the gentleman decided all of this newly discovered virility was too much to bestow on only one woman.
The woman's lawyer is blaming Viagra on the sudden break-up and he likens the pill to a loaded gun. He is talking about actually also suing the drug's manufacturer.
As a litigation lawyer this is one lawsuit I would like very much to see. I can just visualize it all:
STIFF J.: This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendant pharmaceutical company for damages for mental distress and anguish. The plaintiff Roberta aged 61 lived together with her boyfriend Frank for 10 years. Four years ago Frank's sexual libido started dropping; he showed no interest in having sex. As the plaintiff put it, a night of excitement for Frank was to watch reruns of "Gilligan's Island".
On the evening in question, Frank came home carrying a vial of blue pills. When the plaintiff questioned him about the pills he said, "Dearie, I have a surprise for you."
At bedtime she noticed Frank downing a pill and sprinkling a couple of drops of Binaca onto his tongue. Within minutes Frank underwent a major transformation. His shrivelling body became muscular. His grey hair turned jet black. She swears that he even started courting her in Italian. She testifies, "He even serenaded me, whipping a mandolin out of the blue.
For the ensuing couple of hours the plaintiff describes the parties as having passionate sex seen only in the pages of the Kama Sutra.
The next day however the honeymoon was over. Frank vanished, leaving a note on the bed reading, "Sorry toots. I have a mission to accomplish."
The plaintiff alleges that her ex is now out prowling and entertaining dozens of other woman. She claims in her statement of claim filed with the court, "This guy easily surpasses the exploits of King Solomon. His Majesty couldn't hold a candle up to Frank."
She blames the defendant, the manufacturer of Viagra, for the demise of her relationship. The question is, is there liability on the manufacturer?
Her lawyer argues that the defendant ought to have put a proper warning on the label.
The defendant claims that in fact the label does display an adequate warning.
I disagree. I don't think that it is sufficient to say "Warning: Do not take before operating a motor vehicle. This pill has had curious reactions on laboratory rats driving cars."
Nor does it help the defendant's case that the pills come in a container that is in the shape of an oyster.
The defence then argues that the event was not negligent as it was not reasonably foreseeable. Defence counsel pleads, "Who would have expected the fellow to become a roaming gigolo? He has even gone so far as to incorporate his affairs into a company entitled 'Honey, It Doesn't Shrink Inc'."
In my view however the outcome was quite foreseeable. This case falls within the foreseeability principles enunciated in the landmark British case of Browning v Lord Admiral Kensington in the year 1765 where Justice Perrywinkle said these judicially immortal words:
The defendant is clearly liable.
Balls. Snowballs. It is foreseeable that they become big snowballs. Once you get the ball rolling my friend you have bought yourself a case.
Turning to the issue of damages, the defendant argues that the sum of 2 million dollars is much too much for this type of case. Counsel argues that the plaintiff's damages are excessive and remote. "Hey", says the learned counsel, "Lovers get jilted every day."
That may be so but this case has also attracted much embarrassment to the plaintiff. It is one thing to get dumped but quite another to have Time Magazine call you and ask, "Madam, did he really look like the Incredible Hulk?"
There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of 2 million dollars. My decision is in no way affected by the fact that the defendant is a wealthy pharmaceutical company.
Are there any offers to settle?
______________
© 2007 Marcel Strigberger. This article CANNOT be copied or reproduced in any way without the expressed written consent of the Author.
Add a comment