we agree that to impose a duty in this case “would be to stretch the concept of foreseeability too far,” as GSK cannot reasonably expect that consumers will rely on information they provide when actually ingesting another company’s drug. Foster, 29 F.3d at 171. Also, we agree that unfair consequences would result if we were to impose a duty upon GSK, when it obtained no benefit from the sale of Apotex’s generic equivalent and had no control over the manufacturing or labeling of paroxetine hydrochloride, yet it bore the expense of developing Paxil from which Apotex materially benefits. Id. at 170. To the extent that Pennsylvania law on the existence of duty requires the additional consideration of public policy, this does not advance Plaintiffs claims against GS 220 (1971) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In addition to evincing
holding that in a redistricting case the legislature has the initial responsibility to act but in the event the legislature fails to act the responsibility shifts to the state judiciary holding manufacturers generalized knowledge of concerns insufficient to meet ucc notice requirement holding pharmaceutical manufacturers to a high degree of responsibility holding that where the defendant pleaded guilty subsequently denied his guilt and attempted to withdraw his plea and then attempted to minimize the significance of his statements at sentencing by averring that he accepted responsibility for the amount that me and the government have agreed to and offering a statement accepting responsibility  were insufficient to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known