of a drug.” Blain v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179, 194 (E.D.Pa.2007). As noted in Blain, Some states require no warning, see Robak v. Abbott Labs., 797 F.Supp. 475, 476 (D.Md.1992), while others have varying levels of requirements for adequate warning of an off-label use. Miles Labs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 133 Cal.App.3d 587, 184 Cal.Rptr. 98 (1982) (manufacturer liable for failure to warn of risks of off-label uses of its product if the manufacturer knew or should have known of the off-label use and that use accounted for a significant portion of the manufacturer’s sales of the drug); Peterson v. Parke Davis & Co., 705 P.2d 1001, 1003 (Colo.Ct.App.1985); Reeder v. Hammond, 125 Mich.App. 223, 336 N.W.2d 3, 5-6 (1983) 3-7118, 1997 WL 201571, at *9 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 10, 1997) (<HOLDING>). As a general rule, under New York law, “[t]he
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 recognizing under alabama law that drugs manufacturer owed duty to warn about potential dangers of using prescription drug for an offlabel to patients prescribing physician by drugs manufacturer holding that manufacturer had no duty to warn its purchasers retailer and transporter of gas of dangers where those purchasers had operated a gas business for years were familiar with the trade journals and already knew the dangers holding a manufacturer had no postsale duty to warn of dangers associated with an auger because numerous hodder factors were not present holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community