WPC- :\ЋJ[鿦OuOc\ N3VfArPAM`h#UA=YMEݗ]e +52ԫEʶb *j.O{rWHr1;% ɳfF+̚P(B0aa/U4DBaЛ0.x*n7'H 01q_N@TQ;{~ҩN^jt+RPqI d5H j@A-BUi#m^TӦ>tR)(Vb0b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m # 0U   r 8 0N 0 0E 0 0| 0S 0' 0 0C 0  0 0 0s 0; 0 0 0 0@; 0{ 0I 0 0 0 0c 0"! 0!b"U<"UJ"## 0D%%(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 0(((( B)) 0) D3* D-* 0K** AS/++ 0H, 0D, A0-|-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2  - --Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman.\  `2Times New Roman Greek  Rd$      2    _ԀWerecognizethatthereisevidenceintherecordsuggestingthat_Hostetler_Ԁwasawareoftherisksofdriving  whileundertheinfluenceofthedrugsand,therefore,anywarningbyDr._Magee_Ԁwouldhavebeenfutile.Nevertheless, x welimitourreviewtothoseissuesconsideredbythetrialcourtwhich,inthiscase,waswhetherDr._Magee_Ԁowedaduty @ tothirdparties.(#$  0    Rd$      1    _ԀWefindnoevidenceintherecordsupportingBurroughsallegationthatthetwodrugs,Somaand_Esgic_ԄPlus,  aremedicallycontraindicated.Rather,theevidenceshowssimplythatthedepressingeffectsontheuserscentral x nervoussystemmaybeenhancedwhenthedrugsaretakentogether.Therefore,weconsiderthisissueasitrelatesto @ Dr._Magee_sallegeddutytowarnhispatientoftherisksofdrivingwhileusingthetwodrugssimultaneously. (|G2d$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3)$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3)$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ 'INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#' #Ԉ ,   August28,2001Session X XX #XX#JUDYC.BURROUGHS,INDIVIDUALLY,ANDASSURVIVINGSPOUSE  ` ANDPERSONALREPRESENTATIVEOFTHEESTATEOF ( x HAROLDL.BURROUGHS,DECEASED @  v. X  ROBERTW.MAGEE,M.D.XX  p  @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLauderdaleCounty x  @@No.5005JosephH.Walker,Judge h  @@*AV) ` dE<G` A H  @@TTNo.W200100238_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJune11,2002 G AV) ` dE<&` A 'w    Thisisapersonalinjuryandwrongfuldeathcase.Theplaintiffandherhusbandwereinvolvedin &v anautomobileaccident.Theplaintiffsuedthedriveroftheothervehicleforherhusbandswrongful f deathaswellasforinjuriesshesustainedintheaccident.Theplaintiffnamedthedriversphysician V asanadditionaltortfeasor,allegingthatthephysiciannegligentlyprescribeddrugstoaknowndrug F addict,negligentlyprescribedtwocontraindicateddrugs,andnegligentlyfailedtowarnhispatient 6 oftherisksofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofthedrugs.Thetrialcourtgrantedthephysicians & motionforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundsthatthephysicianhadnodutytounidentifiablethird  partiessuchastheplaintiff.Weaffirminpartandreverseinpart,findingthatthephysicianowed  adutytotheplaintiffandthedecedenttowarnhispatientoftherisksofdrivingwhileunderthe  influenceoftheprescribeddrugs.  P Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedinPart, v  ReversedinPartandRemanded  f!   #X3#XX.HollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J., F#! W.S.,andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. 6$" J.HoustonGordonandJasonG.Whitworth,Covington,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,JudyC. &f!$ Burroughs. 'V"% HubertB.JonesandGaryH.Nichols,Dyersburg,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,RobertW.Magee, (6$' M.D. )&%(    @ OPINION #XX #XX *&) #XX #  XX   Thisisapersonalinjuryandwrongfuldeathlawsuit.OnJuly31,1997Plaintiff/Appellant ,'+ JudyBurroughs( Burroughs)andherhusband,decedentHaroldBurroughs,wereinvolvedinan -(, automobileaccidentwithasecondvehicledrivenbyRogerHostetler( Hostetler)attheintersection  ofU.S.51andStateRoute87inLauderdaleCounty,Tennessee.ItisundisputedthatHostetlerran  astopsignandthathispickuptruckhitthedriverssideoftheBurroughscar._Hostetler_Ԁmaintains  thattheaccidentwascausedbyasuddenbrakefailure.    Defendant/AppelleeRobertMagee,M.D.( Dr.Magee)isaphysicianwhotreatedHostetler `  priortotheaccident.MageehadpracticedwiththeDyersburgMedicalGroupsinceJuly1996.The P  daybeforetheaccident,HostetlerwenttotheDyersburgMedicalGroupclinic,complainingof @  persistentweaknessinhisupperextremities,recurrentheadaches,andmusclecramps.Dr.Magee 0  attributedthesesymptomstoheatexhaustion.  p    Dr.MageeprescribedthemusclerelaxantCarisprodol( Soma)totreatHostetlerscramps P  andmusclespasms.Dr_Magee_ԀalsoprescribedEsgicPlustotreat_Hostetler_sheadaches.BothSoma @  andEsgicPlusarecentralnervoussystemdepressantswhichmayimpairtheusersabilitytodrive. 0  Whenthedrugsareusedsimultaneously,theimpairmentmaybeenhanced.Theevidenceis   disputedwhetherDr.MageeverballywarnedHostetlertoavoiddrivingwhiletakingthedrugs.The  evidenceisalsodisputedwhetherDr.MageeverballywarnedHostetlerthattheimpairmentis  enhancedwhenthetwodrugsaretakentogether.    Onthedayoftheaccident,HostetlertookatableteachofEsgicPlusandSomawithhis  breakfastandthenatabletofEsgicPluswithhislunchsometimebetween1:00p.m.and2:00p.m. p _Hostetler_Ԁdidnotconsumeanyalcoholicbeveragesor,asidefromtheEsgicPlusandSoma,didnot ` useanyotherdrugonthedayoftheaccident.Atthesceneoftheaccident,however,Hostetlerwas P describedasappearingtobeundertheinfluenceofdrugsoralcohol._Hostetler_Ԁtoldtheinvestigating @ trooper,JohnMarvin,thathewasonmedicationforhisinjuredbackbutthathedidnotthinkthat 0 themedicationaffectedhisabilitytodrive.  p   ItwaslaterlearnedthatHostetlerhadpreviouslybeentreatedbytheDyersburgMedical P Groupclinic,beginningin1986,aftersufferinglegandbackinjuriesfromafall.Earliernotesfrom @ Hostetlersmedicalrecordindicatedthat_Hostetler_Ԁrepeatedlyvisitedtheclinictoobtainrefillsof 0 hisprescriptionforSoma.Doctorseventuallybecamesuspiciousand,onthreeseparateoccasions   in1995,refusedtoprescribeSomato_Hostetler_Ԁoutoffearthathewasabusingthedrug.Most ! relevantisanotewrittenbyDr.C.R.WebbfromAugust1995,whichstated: "  ThismanhasbeentakingSomatablets350mgp.o.whiledrivinga(sic)overthe $" roadtruckforseveralyears.HecomestodayinDr.Huntsabsencedemandingthat % # IprescribetheSomaforhimandIhavedeclinedtodosobecauseIthinkthishas p&!$ reachedthestageofsubstanceabuseandIdontfeelthatIshouldprescribethis `'"% medicationforhimtocontinuetakingwhiledrivingarigonthehighwaysacrossthe P(#& country. @)$' VDr._Magee_ԀdidnotreviewthesenotesbeforeprescribingSomaandEsgicPlustoHostetler.  +p&)   Burroughsandherhusbandbothsufferedsignificantinjuriesasaresultoftheaccident.  HaroldBurroughsultimatelydiedfromhisinjuries.    Thereafter,BurroughsfiledawrongfuldeathandpersonalinjurylawsuitagainstHostetler,  allegingthatHostetlerignoredorfailedtoheedastopsignbeforepullingintotheintersectionor, p inthealternative,failedtoproperlyinspectandmaintainhisbrakes.Subsequently,Burroughs `  amendedhercomplainttojoinDr.Mageeasanadditionaldefendant.Theamendedcomplaint P  allegedthatDr.MageecreatedanunreasonableriskofharmtoBurroughsandherhusbandby @  prescribingdrugstoasuspecteddrugabuser,and,inaddition,failedtowarnhispatientofthedrugs 0  debilitativeeffects,especiallywhenusedincombination.Theamendedcomplaintallegedthat,in  p  eithercase,Dr.Mageeviolatedtherecognizedstandardofmedicalcareforafamilypractitioner. `    Inresponse,Dr.Mageefiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,asserting that hedidnotowe @  adutyofcaretoplaintifforplaintiffsdecedentinthiscaseand,furthermore,thathisactionsin 0  prescribingthedrugswerenotthecauseinfactortheproximatecauseoftheaccident.Thetrial   courtgrantedDr.Mageesmotion,holdingthatDr.Magee didnotoweadutyofcaretoplaintiffs,  whowerenotforeseeable,readilyidentifiablethirdpersons,andtheirinterestswerenotentitledto  protectionatthehandsofthatdefendantunderthefacts.(R.412)Fromthetrialcourtsorder  grantingsummaryjudgment,Burroughsnowappeals.    Onappeal,BurroughsarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatDr.Mageedidnotowe p adutytoherandherhusband.BurroughsarguesthatDr.Mageeowedheradutyto(1)warnhis ` patientoftherisksofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceoftheprescriptiondrugs;(2)avoid P prescribingdrugstoapatientwhohekneworshouldhaveknownwasabusingthedrugs;(3)avoid @ prescribingdrugstoatruckdriverwho,becauseofhisdrugabuse,wasarecognizeddangertoother 0 motorists;and(4)avoidprescribingdrugswhicharecontraindicatedandhaveincreaseddetrimental  p effectsontheusersdrivingabilities.3 2#  1       `   /XXXXAmotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthatthere @ arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatter 0 oflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenof   demonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622 ! (Tenn.1997).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateview "  oftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthat #! party,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. #XXX/Xm*#/XXXX $"   Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfrom p&!$ thefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn. `'"% 1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregarding  atrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthe  trialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt. Warrenv.  EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997).#XXX/X-#    Aclaimbasedonnegligencerequiresproofofthefollowingelements:(1)adutyofcare `  owedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff;(2)conductbythedefendantfallingbelowthestandardof P  careamountingtoabreachofthatduty;(3)aninjuryorloss;(4)causationinfact;and(5)proximate @  orlegalcause. Turnerv.Jordan ,957S.W.2d815,818(Tenn.1997). 0    Theexistenceofadutyisaquestionoflawtobedecidedbythecourt. Id .Onlyafteritis `  establishedthatthedefendantowedtheplaintiffalegaldutydoesthefactfinderdeterminewhether P  thedefendantviolatedthatduty. SeeLindseyv.MiamiDev.Corp. ,689S.W.2d856,859(Tenn. @  1985) .Adutygenerallyariseswherethe defendantsconductposesanunreasonableand 0  foreseeableriskofharmtopersonsorproperty. McCallv.Wilder ,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.   1995).Indecidingwhetheralegaldutyexists,thecourtshouldconsiderwhether:  ...sucharelationexistsbetweenthepartiesthatthecommunitywillimposealegal  obligationupononeforthebenefitofothers!or,moresimply,whethertheinterest  oftheplaintiffwhichhassufferedinvasionwasentitledtolegalprotectionatthe  handsofthedefendant.Thisisentirelyaquestionoflaw,tobedeterminedby p referencetothebodyofstatutes,rules,principlesandprecedentswhichmakeupthe ` law;anditmustbedeterminedonlybythecourt...Adecisionbythecourtthat,upon P anyversionofthefacts,thereisnoduty,mustnecessarilyresultinjudgmentforthe @ defendant. 0 5 Lindsey ,689S.W.2dat859(quotingProsserandKeeton,Torts0X XXX#XX X0X 9#Ԁ37,p.236(5thed.1984)). Thus, ` theimpositionofalegaldutyreflectssocietyscontemporarypoliciesandsocialrequirements ` concerningtherightsofindividualsandthegeneralpublictobeprotectedfromanothersactor P conduct.   Bradshawv.Daniel ,854S.W.2d865,870(Tenn.1993). @   Generallyapersonhasadutytousereasonablecaretorefrainfromconductthatwill !  foreseeablycauseharmtoothers;however,thereisnosuchdutytoprotectothersfromthe "  dangerousconductofthirdpersonsunlessa specialrelationshipexistseitherbetweentheactorand #! thethirdpersonortheactorandthepersonharmed. Turner ,957S.W.2dat818;Restatement $" (Second)ofTorts0X XXX#XX X0X <#Ԁ315(1964).Wheretheactorstandsinaspecialrelationshiptothepersonwho % # isthesourceofthedanger,theactormay,undercertainlimitedcircumstances,beheldliableforhis &!$ negligenceinfailingtopreventthepersonfromcausingphysicalharmtoothers. Bradshaw ,854 '"% S.W.2dat871 (citing _Tarasoff_Ԁv.RegentsofUniv.ofCal. ,551P.2d334,343(Cal.1976)).Thus, p(#& theTennesseeSupremeCourthas recognizedthataphysicianmayoweadutytononpatientthird `)$' partiesforinjuriescausedbythephysiciansnegligence,iftheinjuriessufferedandthemannerin P*%( whichtheyoccurredwerereasonablyforeseeable. Id. at870. SeealsoWhartonTransp.Corp.v. @+&) Bridges ,606S.W.2d521,526(Tenn.1980)(holdingthatdefendantphysicianmaybeheldliable 0,'* inindemnitytohispatientsemployerwherethephysiciannegligentlycertifiedhispatientasfitto  driveacommercialtruckandthepatientthereafterwasinvolvedinanaccidentproximatelycaused  bythepatientsphysicaldisabilitieswhichthephysicianfailedtodiscover).    WefirstaddresswhetherDr.Mageehadadutytothemotoringpublic,includingBurroughs p andherdeceasedhusband,towarnhispatientofsideeffectsoftheprescribeddrugsandthe `  associatedrisksofdrivingwhileundertheirinfluence.InholdingthatDr.Mageesdutytowarn P  onlyextendedtoidentifiablethirdparties,thetrialcourtreliedontheTennesseeSupremeCourts @  decisionin Bradshaw .In Bradshaw ,apatientofthedefendantphysiciandiedfromRocky 0  MountainSpottedFever.TheCourtdiscussedwhetherthedefendantphysicianowedalegalduty  p  tothewifeofthepatienttoadviseherofherownriskofexposuretoRockyMountainSpottedFever. `   Bradshaw ,854S.W.2dat870872.The Bradshaw Courtfirstnotedthat asageneralrule,under P  thecommonlaw,onepersonowednoaffirmativedutytowarnthoseendangeredbytheconductof @  another. Id. at870.However,theCourtfurthernotedthat theexistenceofthephysicianpatient 0  relationshipissufficienttoimposeuponaphysiciananaffirmativedutytowarnidentifiablethird   personsinthepatientsimmediatefamilyagainstforeseeablerisksemanatingfromapatients  illness. Id. at872.Thus,insomecases,suchasthoseinvolvingcontagiousdiseases,aphysician  mayhaveadutytowarnthose identifiablepersonswhoareparticularlyatrisk.    Althoughthetrialcourtreliedon Bradshaw ,itisinapplicableinthiscase.Burroughsdoes  notallegethatDr.Mageehadadutytowarnherorherhusband,whichwastheissuein Bradshaw . p Rather,BurroughscontendsthatDr.Mageeowedadutytoprotectagainstforeseeableharmtoother ` motoristsbywarninghispatientagainsttherisksofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofthe P prescribeddrugs. @   ThefactsinthiscasearemoreanalogoustothoseintheTennesseeSupremeCourtsrecent  p decisionin EstateofAmosv.VanderbiltUniversity ,62S.W.3d133(Tenn.2001).In Estateof ` Amos ,in1984,thepatienthadbeengivenabloodtransfusioninfectedwithHIVbythedefendant P medicalcenter. Id. at135.Atthetimeshereceivedthebloodtransfusion,thepatientwas @ unmarried. Id. In1987,themedicalcenterbeganofferingfreeHIVtestingtopatientswhohad 0 receivedbloodtransfusionsatitsfacilitiesinthepast;howeverthemedicalcenterdidnotundertake   toidentifyandwarnallpriorpatientsoftheirpotentialexposuretoHIVfromcontaminated ! transfusions. Id. Thepatientmarriedin1989andgavebirthtoadaughterlaterthatyear. Id. Soon "  afterbirth,thedaughterdiedasaresultofanAIDSrelatedvirus. Id. Thepatientthenunderwent #! anHIVexaminationandlearnedthatshewasHIVpositive. Id. Thepatientandherhusbandlater $" suedthemedicalcenter,allegingthatitnegligentlyfailedtowarnthepatientofherriskof % # contractingHIVfromherpreviousbloodtransfusion. Id. Ajuryverdictwasreturnedinfavorof p&!$ thepatientshusband.Onappeal,theintermediateappellatecourtreversed,findingthatthehusband `'"%  wasnotidentifiableduringtheperiodofinactionsoastojustifyimposingadutyonVanderbilt. P(#&  EstateofAmosv.VanderbiltUniv,Inc. ,No.M199900998COAR3CV,2000WL336733,at* @)$' 4(Tenn.Ct.App.March31,2000).ThecasewasthenappealedtotheTennesseeSupremeCourt. 0*%( Initsopinion,theTennesseeSupremeCourtfirstnotedthat [t]hedutycontemplatedhereisnotone  +p&) towarnMr.AmoshimselfofMrs.AmossexposuretoHIVbuttowarnMrs.Amossothatshe ,`'* mighttakeadequateprecautionstopreventtransmissionofthediseasetoMr.Amosandtheirchild.   EstateofAmos ,62S.W.3dat138.Inreversingthedecisionoftheintermediateappellatecourt,the  SupremeCourtheldthat [i]twasreasonablyforeseeablethatMrs.Amoswouldonedaymarryand  haveafamily.Herfuturehusbandanddaughterwerewithintheclassofidentifiablethirdpersons  atriskforexposuretoHIV. Id.   p   Inaddition,in WhartonTransportCorp.v.Bridges ,606S.W.2d521,527(Tenn.1980),the P  TennesseeSupreme  Courtcitedwithapprovalthecaseof Kaiserv.SuburbanTransportation @  System ,398P.2d14(Wash.1965).In Kaiser ,theWashingtonSupremeCourtfoundthatthe 0  defendantphysiciancouldbeheldliabletoathirdpartyinjuredinabuscrash.Thebusdriverhad  p  lostconsciousnesswhileundertheinfluenceofmedicationprescribedbythedefendantphysician. `   Id. at15.The Kaiser courtnotedevidenceintherecordthatthedefendantphysicianfailedtogive P  thedriveranywarningofthedrugsdangeroussideeffects. Id. at16.Thecourtfoundthatthe @  defendantphysiciancouldbeheld  liable ifthejuryfindshefailedtogivewarningoftheside 0  effectsofthedrug,sincetheharmresultingtotheplaintiffwasinthegeneralfieldofdanger,which   shouldreasonablyhavebeenforeseenbythedoctorwhenheadministeredthedrug. Id.  Seealso  Goodenv.Tips ,651S.W.2d364(Tex.App.1983).Inthiscase,asin Kaiser,EstateofAmos and   Wharton ,itwasreasonablyforeseeablethatotherpersonscouldbeinjuredasaresultofDr.  MageesallegedfailuretowarnHostetlerand,further,Burroughsandherdeceasedhusbandwere  withintheclassof identifiablepersonsplacedatrisk.    Inordertoestablishaduty,theCourtmustnotonlydeterminethattheharmwasforeseeable; ` itmustalso  weightheforeseeabilityandgravityofthepossibleharmagainsttheburdenimposed P uponthedefendantintakingreasonableprecautionstoguardagainsttheharm. McClungv.Delta @ SquareLtd.Pship ,937S.W.2d891,904(Tenn.1996).  󀀀Aphysicianalreadyoperatesunderaduty 0 towarnhispatientofanydangeroussideeffectsofdrugsheprescribes.Consequently,expanding  p thephysiciansscopeofliability toincludeinjuriestoforeseeablevictimsotherthanthepatient ` doesnotsignificantlyalterthedegreeofmedicalcareowedtothepatient. SeeMyersv. P Quesenberry ,193Cal.Rptr.733,736(Cal.Ct.App.1983).However,iftheprescribingphysician @ doesnotprovidehispatientwithanadequatewarningoftherisksofdrivingwhileunderthe 0 influenceofprescribeddrugs,thegravityofharmtothirdpartymotoristsissignificant.     Dr.Mageearguesthatseveralotherjurisdictionsholdthataphysicianorothermedical "  providerdoesnotoweadutytoathirdpartymotoristwhenprescribingdrugstohispatient. See #! Shortnacyv.N.AtlantaInternalMed.,P.C. ,556S.E.2d209(Ga.Ct.App.2001); Lesterv.Hall , $" 970P.2d590(N.M.1998); Conboyv.Mogeloff ,567N.Y.S.2d960(N.Y.App.Div.1991); Kirkv. % # MichaelReeseHosp.andMed.Ctr. ,513N.E.2d387(Ill.1987); Forlawv.Fitzer ,456So.2d432 p&!$ (Fla.1984).Wenotethatseveralofthesedecisionsdonot,ashere,involvethephysiciansfailure `'"% towarnhispatientoftheriskofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceoftheprescribeddrugs. See P(#& Shortnacy ,556S.E.2dat211( Theinjectionrecordstatesthat[patient]wastoldthatheshouldnot @)$' drinkalcohol,drive,oroperateheavyorlightmachineryfor12hoursaftertheinjections.); Forlaw , 0*%( 456So.2d432(addressingphysiciansprescribingdrugstoaknowndrugabuserratherthana  +p&) failuretowarn).  ,`'*   Regardless,inconsideringwhetheradutyshouldbefound,itisclearthatBurroughsandher  husbandwereintheclassofidentifiablethirdpersonswhocouldbeharmedbyDr.Mageesalleged  failuretowarnHostetleroftherisksofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceoftheprescribeddrugs,  andthattheharmwasthereforereasonablyforeseeable.Thepotentialharmtomotoristssuchas  Burroughsandherhusbandwassubstantial.Finally,expandingthephysiciansscopeofpotential p liabilitytoincludeinjuriestopersonsotherthanHostetlerdoesnotalterthephysiciansdutytohis `  patientanddoesnotsignificantlyincreasetheburdenonthephysician.Allofthesefactorsmilitate P  infavoroffindingaduty.Therefore,weconcludethat,underthefactsofthiscase,Dr.Mageeowed @  adutytoBurroughsandherhusbandtowarnhispatient,Hostetler,oftherisksofdrivingwhile 0  undertheinfluenceoftheprescribeddrugs,andoftheenhancedeffectsoftakingthetwoprescribed  p  drugstogether.Consequently,thetrialcourtsordergrantingsummaryjudgmenttoDr.Mageeis `  reversedinsofarasitrelatestotheplaintiffsclaimsthatDr.MageefailedtowarnHostetlerofthe P  risksofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofSomaorEsgicPlus,aswellastheenhancedeffectand @  increasedriskofdrivingifthetwoaretakenconcurrently.1 2#  2      ׀ 0  Ѐ  WenextaddresswhetherDr.Mageehadadutytothirdpartiestousereasonablecarewhen  prescribingdrugstoapatientwhowasasuspecteddrugabuserandapotentialdangertoother  motorists. Itmustbenotedthat [t]hereisnothinginherentlyimproperinprescribingdrugstoadrug  addict. Forlaw ,456So.2dat434.Indeed,asitrelatestothephysiciansmedicalcaretohis  patient,thephysicianmayhavelegitimatemedicalreasonsforprescribingdrugstoasuspectedor  knowndrugabuser.Therefore,ifsuchadutywerefound,itwouldrequirethephysician,before p prescribingdrugstohispatient,tomakeadecisionbasednotonlyonhispatientsbestinterest,but ` alsobasedonthepossibilityofharmtounknownthirdparties.Indeed,itisentirelyforeseeablethat P asituationcouldariseinwhichitwasmedicallyadvisabletoprescribedrugstoaknowndrug @ abuser,andthephysicianwasreluctanttodosobecauseofthephysicianspotentialliabilitytothird 0 parties.Incontrast,forafailuretowarnclaim,imposingonthephysicianpotentialliabilitytothe  p generalpublicmerelyrequirestheprescribingphysiciantodowhatheis alreadyobligatedtodo ` fortheprotectionof[his]patient. SeeMyers ,193Cal.Rptr.at736. P   ThereasoningoftheIndianaSupremeCourtin Webbv.Jarvis ,575N.E.2d992(Ind.1991) 0 ispersuasive.In Webb ,thedefendantphysicianwasallegedtohavenegligentlyoverprescribed   anabolicsteroidstohispatient,whichcausedthepatienttoturn intoatoxicpsychoticwhowas ! unabletocontrolhisrages. Id. at994.Theplaintiffwasshotandinjuredbythepatient.The "  plaintiffsuedthephysician,urgingthecourt tofindanaffirmativedutyonthepartofaphysician #! toadministermedicaltreatmenttoapatientinsuchawaysoastotakeintoaccountpossibleharm $"  p&!$ tounidentifiablethirdpersons. Id. at995.The Webb court,inholdingthatnodutywasowedto  theplaintiff,foundthat:  Aphysiciansfirstloyaltymustbetohispatient.Imposingadutyonaphysicianto  predictapatientsbehavioralreactiontomedicationandtoidentifypossibleplaintiffs p wouldcauseadividedloyalty.Werewetoimposeadutyonaphysiciantoconsider `  theriskofharmtothirdpersonsbeforeprescribingmedicationtoapatient,wewould P  beforcingthephysiciantoweighthewelfareofunknownpersonsagainstthewelfare @  ofhispatient.Suchanimpositionisunacceptable. 0  x Id. at997.Underthefactsinthiscase,wemustconcludethatDr.Mageeowednodutyto `  Burroughsandherhusbandtoconsiderpotentiallyharmtothemwhenprescribingdrugstohis P  patient,Hostetler.Therefore,thetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentisaffirmedinsofarasit @  relatestoBurroughsclaimsbasedonDr.Mageesallegeddutytorefrainfromprescribingdrugs 0  toHostetlerbecausehewasasuspecteddrugabuserandbecausehewasatruckdriver,andtorefrain   fromprescribingdrugstoHostetlerwhichwerepurportedlymedicallycontraindicatedordrugs  whichhadadetrimentaleffectonHostetlersdrivingabilitieswhentakeneitherseparatelyor  together.    Thecaseisaffirmedinpartandreversedinpartassetforthabove,andremandedtothetrial  courtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisOpinion.Costsonappealaretaxed equallytothe p Appellant,JudyC.Burroughs,Individually,andassurvivingspouseandpersonalrepresentativeof ` theEstateofHaroldL.Burroughs,andhersuretyandtotheAppellee,RobertW.Magee,M.D.,for P whichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. @     `  ̀0  ___________________________________  @  @  @  @  @  @ 0(#(#    `     h   HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE