ABSTRACT
The typical faceoff in litigation is between a defendant who arguably had superior information and a plaintiff who claims disadvantage from not having enough information. An important factor in many kinds of law involving injuries of various kinds is information about risk. A subtle kind of defense is that which is called implied assumption of risk, which is a complete bar to recovery against plaintiffs. The degree of knowledge becomes an important factor with respect to assumption of risk. An important feature of the defense is the obviousness of a risk. A wrenching case in which the plaintiff alleged that his father killed his mother and then committed suicide—events that the plaintiff attributed to his father's taking of Prozac—illustrates the limitations of the learned intermediary doctrine. The question of adequacy of warning also extends to the frequency of injuring events and to the severity of the risk at issue.
