Bewers v. American Home Products Corp.

99 A.D.2d 949, 472 N.Y.S.2d 637 (1984)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bewers v. American Home Products Corp.

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
99 A.D.2d 949, 472 N.Y.S.2d 637 (1984)

Facts

American Home Products Corporation (AHP) (defendant) was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (Wyeth) (defendant) was AHP’s wholly owned subsidiary. Wyeth was incorporated in New York and had its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. AHP held the licenses for two female oral contraceptives known as Ovran and Ovranette (contraceptives). Gwendoline Bewers and other users of the contraceptives in the United Kingdom (collectively, women) (collectively, plaintiffs) sued AHP, Wyeth, and an unincorporated AHP division in New York state court, alleging that AHP and Wyeth were liable to the women under negligence, breach-of-warranty, strict-liability, and fraud theories because the contraceptives caused the women to suffer severe strokes. AHP and Wyeth moved to dismiss the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 327. Per AHP and Wyeth, the United Kingdom was a more appropriate forum because the contraceptives were prescribed, purchased, and taken in the United Kingdom and were manufactured, tested, labelled, and distributed in the United Kingdom by an English company that was AHP’s licensee in the United Kingdom. The women responded that AHP and Wyeth committed the actual wrongs against them in New York because, while in New York, AHP and Wyeth decided to promote, market, sell, and distribute the contraceptives in the United Kingdom without adequately warning the women about the contraceptives’ dangers. The women further argued that the United Kingdom was not a reasonable forum because the United Kingdom did not recognize strict-liability claims, which the women asserted was their strongest theory of recovery; also, the women would not have the rights to a jury trial and significant pretrial discovery in the United Kingdom, as they would in New York. The supreme court denied AHP and Wyeth’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of justice, fairness, and convenience. AHP and Wyeth appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership