Case XIX: A Druggist’s Liability

Case.—Felix, a prominent druggist in a suburban town, compounded a prescription for a business man of the town. Through carelessness he used a powerful drug not called for by the doctor’s written orders, and as a consequence his customer was taken violently sick, and was unable to leave his bed for three weeks.

Question.—Is the druggist bound to compensate the business man for the loss sustained through his carelessness?

Solution.—The consequence of an error made through carelessness, must of necessity fall upon the shoulders of the one guilty of the carelessness. If this were not so, men could with impunity do considerable harm to their fellow-beings. So in the present case the druggist must feel that he owes to the business man a duty that fundamentally springs from the harm done by the mixing of drugs in a way marked by the lack, more or less, of a reasonable amount of care. There can be no doubt that the pharmacist should be mulcted for the benefit of the injured and sick business man.

Theologians are fairly unanimous in the contention that no compensation, in justice, is due for the injury done to the health of the customer, that is, for the pain, weakness, physical weariness, etc. Their decision is that bodily damage can not (probably) be compensated for, by the bestowal or exchange of goods of another order. The reason for this is that commutative justice demands equality. Where this is impossible of attainment, then strict justice ceases its call for satisfaction. The claim is made that no equality exists between the life of man and money. Hence strict justice does not demand a monetary return for harm done to ones health, or bodily life. Of course this ignores the question of equity.

The druggist, however, cannot be excused from repairing the injury done to the business interests of the sick man during the three weeks of sickness incidental to his mistake. Furthermore, the protracted illness has been a constant drain upon the money chest of the sick individual, and this, too, must be laid to the door of the careless pharmacist. Of course, extraordinary and unforeseen harm cannot be charged to the druggist. He is to be mulcted only in proportion to the degree of his guilt. Moreover, no charge can be made by the druggist for the medicine necessary to aid the recovery of the sick man. For it would be manifestly unjust to make a man ill by one drug and then compel him to pay for the drugs needed to remove this illness. Hence the drugs are to be supplied gratis.

The real difficulty to be overcome on this point is to do what justice calls for and still avoid injury to reputation. The amount of carelessness in the case surely does not demand the sacrifice of one’s business reputation. Therefore the druggist must seek some method of conciliating the claims of justice to his customer with the preservation of his own good name. If this cannot be done, then the preservation of his reputation must take precedence over the lesser claims of pecuniary satisfaction for harm done.