From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Shanks v. Upjohn

Alaska Supreme Court
835 P.2d 1189 (1992)

Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Harvey Rice’s doctor prescribed Rice Xanax. After taking the Xanax, Rice committed suicide. Sharon Shanks (plaintiff), the personal representative of Rice’s estate, filed a strict-products-liability action against Upjohn Company (Upjohn) (defendant), the manufacturer of Xanax, alleging that Xanax was (1) defective in its design (the design-defect claim) and (2) defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings that Xanax could cause suicidal ideations (the failure-to-warn claim). Upjohn countered, arguing that, as a prescription-drug manufacturer, it was exempt from Shanks’s design-defect claim. The trial court agreed and dismissed Shanks’s design-defect claim. Shanks’s failure-to-warn claim proceeded to trial. At trial, the trial judge instructed the jury on negligent failure to warn instead of strict-liability failure to warn. The jury ruled for Upjohn. Shanks appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court had erred by dismissing her strict-liability design-defect claim and by incorrectly instructing the jury on the failure-to-warn claim.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
The procedural disposition (e.g., reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

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 966,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.
Unlock this case brief Read our student testimonials
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.
Learn about our approach Read more about Quimbee

Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 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.
AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Here's why 966,000 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
47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 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

Strict LiabilityImposition of liability upon a defendant regardless of the defendant’s conduct or fault. Under strict liability in the tort context, an actor is liable regardless of whether the actor was negligent or otherwise culpable. Strict liability in the tort context is imposed only in limited circumstances; it may be applied in cases involving abnormally dangerous activities, injuries caused by animals, and products liability. In criminal law, strict liability imposes criminal liability with no proof of fault. Strict liability may extend to all elements of a crime or only to some elements. In many jurisdictions, strict liability is also known as absolute liability.
Design DefectA design of a product that is so inherently dangerous that the product’s creator and promoters should bear liability for injuries resulting from the product’s use. A design is defective if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or if, in light of all relevant factors, the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design.
Risk-Utility AnalysisA comparison of the usefulness of a product with the risk of danger it poses to consumers.
Products LiabilityAn area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held liable for injuries caused by those products under theories of negligent design, manufacture, or failure to provide adequate warnings.
Failure to WarnA products-liability claim alleging that a product is defective because of its inadequate warning.
Consumer-Expectation TestA test used to determine liability in products-liability actions. In cases involving manufacturing defects, a product will be found unreasonably dangerous under the consumer-expectation test if the product is dangerous beyond the expectations of an ordinary, reasonable consumer if used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner. In cases involving design defects, a product will be found to have a defective design under the consumer-expectation test if the product as designed is dangerous beyond the expectations of an ordinary, reasonable consumer if used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner. The consumer-expectation test is also known as the consumer-contemplation test.