Quote:
Originally Posted by puckluck2
They are independently owned and operated but are IN a shoppers drug mart. When you go to a pharmacy as a customer and it is IN SDM then you are going to the shoppers pharmacy. Why should the pharmacy operate in a SDM and then cry "independently owned and operated" when something like this happens? SDM benefits greatly from the pharmacy being there so they should be a defendant as well when something bad happens.
Not agreeing it's a legitimate lawsuit or picking sides but why shouldn't SDM be named a defendant? The alleged negligence happened IN their store where they advertise the pharmacy being there. They should be at least held partly responsible if their was any negligence on their side.
|
From an SDM perspective wouldnt insuring the pharmicist is licensed with the governing body be enough to to say they werent negligent. They did what was required by law. What else should have SDM done presuming the pharmisist isnt the owner of the SDM