Can you sue a pharmacist who won't dispense the Pill?

[The Kernel]

So? A company which manufactures lawnmowers and forgets to warn you not to stick your hand into the chute did not directly cause your injury either, yet they are still liable. It is clear that you simply don't understand how liability works, since you are still operating off a simplistic "who bears primary blame" mentality.

You are still talking about product liability which has nothing to do with this. Product liability is designed the way it is for a reason: there is no other way to share blame among the multitudes of corporations that go into making a product. This is a total red herring as this case has nothing to do with a defective product.

So? No person is realistically going to be unable to turn off a lawnmower before sticking his hand in the chute either. The law can and does make people liable for inaction to prevent other peoples' problems, as offensive as this may be to you on a touchy-feely emotional level.

Which is product liability and has nothing to do with this. Do you understand that I conceed that there is grounds for a lawsuit based on the actions of the pharmacist? But this has nothing to do with the resulting pregnancy and I have seen nothing to suggest that he would be found liable for that.

If it is negligence, then they are liable for anything which can be argued to have been caused by that negligence. If the couple tried to use rhythm method and failed (not an uncommon occurrence), they could argue that had the pharmacist not been negligent, they would not have these extra expenses.

It is not the pharmacists responsibility that the couple is not educated on proper birth control techniques either. If the woman got denied for birth control, used a condom and it broke, are you saying that she could then argue that the pharmacist is responsible becuase if he had provided the birth control she wouldn't have gotten pregnant?

Do you understand WHY product warning label liability has this chain of responsibility? It's because the government can and does hold you liable for inaction which can be argued to be a contributing factor in a problem. It doesn't have to be the direct cause; it only has to fail to prevent. I say again: you need to study more of the history of liability law, because you don't seem to understand how this works.

Alright, do you have a link that shows this stretches beyond product liability? From what I was taught, product liability was designed the way it was because it was the only concievable way to deal with shared liability, and that it doesn't extend beyond manufactured products, which is clearly not the case here.

If you've got a link on point that all of liability law is contstucted this way, I'll conceed the argument.

[Darth Wong]

You are still talking about product liability which has nothing to do with this. Product liability is designed the way it is for a reason: there is no other way to share blame among the multitudes of corporations that go into making a product. This is a total red herring as this case has nothing to do with a defective product.

No, that is not the rationale for product liability. Product liability law is not a special case; it is indicative of the way liability is defined in the legal system. Where the hell did you get the idea that product liability is some kind of freak anomaly which is totally non-indicative of the way the justice system views liability?

If you've got a link on point that all of liability law is contstucted this way, I'll conceed the argument.

In other words, you act as though your "product liability totally different from all other kinds of liability under the law" should be considered true until proven untrue? Way to shift the burden of proof there, pal.

[Lord Zentei]

What about doctors and hospitals who refuse to perform abortions? Could they be sued for not providing services? Or would they get off the hook with the "Go somewhere else!" defense?

If the pregnancy is life threatening, they could be sued. Otherwise, I don't know.

[The Kernel]

No, that is not the rationale for product liability. Product liability law is not a special case; it is indicative of the way liability is defined in the legal system. Where the hell did you get the idea that product liability is some kind of freak anomaly which is totally non-indicative of the way the justice system views liability?

Because that is the way it is. Product liability is the way it is because the legal system needed to find a way to share damages among a number of responsible parties. If you look at the rest of tort law, product liability is not directly compareable to individual torts in damages or fault. The law requires a specific wrongdoing on the part of the defendent which directly caused the result, in this case it is an indirect result and thus not the fault of the pharmacist.

The woman in the example could still have a valid tort case against the pharmacist for refusing to provide services (which you've tied to a specific wrongdoing) but not for the pregnancy, which he was not responsible for.

In other words, you act as though your "product liability totally different from all other kinds of liability under the law" should be considered true until proven untrue? Way to shift the burden of proof there, pal.

You are the one who made the argument that product liability and personal liability are directly compareable. Obviously the analogy for a lawnmower and a woman trying to buy pills is not the same, so please show your link (either through the precedence of case law or general law) to back this up. You are asking me to disprove something which you yourself claimed but failed to back up, how does the burden of proof fall on me?