Druggist

One who deals in medicinal substances, vegetable, animal, or mineral, uncompounded. In America, the term "druggist" is used synonymously with "apothecary," although, strictly speaking, a druggist is one who deals in medicinal substances, vegetable, animal, or mineral, without compounding or preparation, which composition and combination are really the business of the apothecary. The term has a much more limited and restricted meaning than "Apothecary." 28 La. Ann. 767. In England, an apothecary is a subphysician, or privileged practitioner. He is ttie ordinary medical man, or family medical attendant, in that country.

One who deals in medicinal substances, ■•. animal, or mineral, uncompounded. State v. Holmes, 28 La. Ann. 765, -<i Am. Rep. 110. In America the term druccist is used synonymously with apothecary, although, strictly speaking, a d one who deals in medicinal substances, \ i gi table, animal, or mineral, before being compound (I, while composition and combination My the business of the apothecary. Tl. is here used in its double sense, and throughout this article is to be read as If druggist or land an apothecary was formerly a sublan, or privileged pra lie was the ordinary medical man, or family medical attendant, in that country. Druggists are BubJSct to the general rule of law that persons who hold then out to the world as possessing skill and qualifi " a particular trade or profession an- hound to reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of their duties. Accordingly the law Implies an undertaking on the part of apothecaries that they shall use a reasonable ad skill in the treatment of their customers; Chit Contr. 553; Qwynn v. Duffleld, 66 la. 708, -'» X. W. 523, 55 Am. Bep. 286; Walton v. Booth,;:i i. a. Ann. 913; Beckwlth v. Oatman, 43 Poll. Torts 26, note. A druggist, whether under a license or not, holds himself out as competent for that business, but not to prescribe as a physician; and for any lack of capacity or for negligence, he is answerable in damages to the person injured, the same principles of law applying to him as to a medical practitioner; Bish. Non-Contr. L. § 716. In dispensing poisons, he is required to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of his customers; Sutton's Adm'r v. Wood, 120 Ky. 23, 85 S. W. 201, 8 Ann. Cas. S94. Where a customer asked for a preparation for a specified purpose (corrosive sublimate for external application to kill lice) and the druggist made the solution so strong (85 per cent.) as to cause severe injury, he was held liable, though it was labelled "Poison Carbolic Acid"; it was the druggist's duty to give proper instructions; Goldberg v. Hegeman & Co., 60 Misc. 107, 111 N. Y. Supp. 679. Where a solution was called for to cleanse a wound, plaintiff had a right to assume that that which was furnished would be at least harmless, if not efficient, and could be applied without further injury; Horst v. Walter, 53 Misc. 591, 103 N. Y. Supp. 750. A druggist is required to know the properties of the medicines he sells and to employ capable assistants; Smith v. Hays, 23 111. App. 244; it is no defence that he used ordinary care; Fleet v. Hollenkemp, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 219, 56 Am. Dec 563; or that the clerk who negligently put up the prescription was a competent pharmacist; Burgess v. Drug Co., 114 la. 275, S6 N. W. 307, 54 L. R. A. 364, 89 Am. St. Rep. 359. The highest degree of skill is not to be expected nor can it reasonably be required of all; Simonds v. Henry, 39 Me. 156, 63 Am. Dec. 611. Perhaps a higher degree of skill than is the usual rule was required in Fleet v. Hollenkemp, 13 B. Monr. (Ky.) 219; where it was held that any mistake made by the druggist, if the result of ignorance or carelessness, renders him liable to the injured party; Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397, 57 Am. Dec. 455. Where one, whether an apothecary or not, negligently gave a customer poison and the customer swallowed it and was injured, he who negligently gave the poison was guilty of a tort, and liable for the injury to the customer unless the latter was also guilty of negligence which contributed to the injury; Gwynn v. Duffield, 61 la. 64, 15 N. W. 594, 47 Am. Rep. 802. If a druggist negligently sells a deadly poison as a harmless medicine to A, who administers it to B and B takes it as a medicine and dies in a few hours by reason thereof, a right of action against the druggist survives to B's administrator; Norton v. Sewall, 106. Mass. 143, 8 Am. Rep. 298. The sale of an article other article, without any knowledge on the part of the vendor that it was to be used in such combination, does not render him liable to an action by one who purchased the article from the original vendee and is injured while using it in a dangerous combination, although by mistake the article sold was different from that which was intended to be sold; Davidson v. Nichols, 11 Allen (Mass.) 514. A druggist who sells to one person for the use of another a hair wash made by himself and represented not to be injurious, is liable to the person for whom it was purchased when used as directed, for injuries arising from such use, the intended use by the third person being known to the vendor; L. R. 5 Ex. 1. The maker of a proprietary medicine recommended for the cure of a certain disease, the bottle having on it directions for use, who sells the medicine, so put up, to a druggist, is liable to one who buys it from the druggist and is injured by its use according to the directions on the bottle; Blood Balm Co. v. Cooper, S3 Ga. 457, 10 S. E. 118, 5 L. R. A. 612, 20 Am. St. Rep. 324. Where a druggist selling a poisonous medicine, fully and clearly warned the person of its nature and gave him accurate directions as to the quantity which he could safely take, and the person was injured or killed by taking an overdose in disregard of the directions, the druggist is not liable for negligence simply because he failed to put a label marked "Poison" on the package as directed by statute. The customer disregarding the warning and direction of the vendor was guilty of negligence; Wohlfahrt v. Beckert, 92 N. Y. 490, 44 Am. Rep. 406. An unlicensed druggist who conducts a drug store cannot escape the penalty of the law for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors by showing that the sales were made for medicinal purposes by his clerk, who was a licensed pharmacist; State v. Norton, 67 la. 641, 25 N. W. 842. A druggist is not liable if he compounds carefully another's prescription; Ray v. Burbank, 61 Ga. 505, 34 Am. Rep. 103. But if he sell one medicine for another and an injury result therefrom, it is no defence for him to show that the case was negligently treated; Brown v. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576, 11 N. W. 392, 41 Am. Rep. 728. An apothecary, if guilty of criminal negligence, and fatal results follow, may be convicted of manslaughter; 1 Lew. Cr. Cas. 169. See Physician.

In popular acceptation, one who deals in medicines, or in the materials used in the preparation of medicines — in its largest signification.! Properly, one whose occupation is to buy and sell drugs, without compounding or preparation. More restricted, therefore, than " apothecary," 2 q, v. Drugs. Substances used in compounding medicines, in dyeing, and in chemical operations. " Drugs and medicines," in an insurance policy, includes saltpeter.* Whether benzine is a drug is a question of fact.* See Liquor; Medicine; Oil. Adulteratihg drugs is a misdemeanor, in most of the States. In some States, competency to compound drugs must be evidenced by a certificate from a board of examiners, or from a reputable school of pharmacy. The care required of a druggist is proportioned to the danger involved. Actual negligence must be shown before he can be made Uable for the consequences of a mistake.^ Where a druggist informs a customer that a preparation is poisonous, and correctly instructs him as to the quantity he may take, and the purchaser dies from an overdose taken in disregard of the du-ections, the druggist is not liable for a failure to label the parcel " poison," as required by a statute." Nor is he liable when he has carefully compounded a physician's prescription.' Criminal negligence, followed by fatal results, may convict him of involuntary manslaughter, g. u." See Police, 2.