Ramirez V. Plough, Inc.

Ramirez v. Plough, Inc.

Court of Appeals of California

12 Cal. Rptr. 2D 423 CT. App. 1992

KEY FACTS

Ramirez filed suit again Plough, Inc. alleging negligence, product liability, and fraud due to her minor son of four months old contracting Reye’s Syndrome after ingesting children’s aspirin marketed and distributed by Plough, Inc. The children’s aspirin (SJAC) bore a warning on its label for Reye’s Syndrome and the symptoms associated to the disease in English, while Ms. Rivera could only understand the Spanish language. SJAC was advertised in Spanish media, both Radio and television; and as it was manufactured and sold in the United States, Plough, Inc. had no legal obligation to place foreign-language warnings on its products. Ms. Rivera did not seek to have the directions or warnings translated to English, even though member of her household spoke English.

ISSUE

Should Plough, Inc. have added a Spanish translation based upon the foreseeability of purchase by a Hispanic not literate in English and the reasonableness of not giving a Spanish-language warning?

DECISION

No. The trial court concluded that Plough, Inc. had no duty to warn in a foreign language and that here was no causal relationship between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s aactivities.

REASON

The extent to which special consideration should be given to persons who have difficulty with the English language is a matter of public policy for consideration by the appropriate legislative bodies and not by the courts. Additionally, holding manufacturers liable for failing to place foreign language warnings on products manufactured in the Unites States would violate public policy.  

ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS

1. This case illustrates the clients’ cultural differences by illuminating the fact that what feels wrong, and what is law, are two completely different things.
2. My view from the parent’s perspective in this case is different. Although a product may be highly advertised, I would not give my child a product labeled in a foreign language that I cannot understand or read. Has I given my child this product, the blame for illness following ingestion would belong to non-other than myself.
3. The ethical obligation a paralegal would have for a client who does not speak the same language would be to consult the supervising attorney, and to get the client to someone who can. Assign a paralegal who can speak the same language to the case, or advise the client to bring an interpreter.
4. A law firm does have a higher obligation to a non-English speaking client than to a drug company selling a drug.  
5. I would have to say yes. It only seems legally correct and fair to explain to a non-English speaking client the differences of the American legal system and its procedures to them as a client. Not doing so could create a legal conflict.