Law Review in 2010 Discussed the View was Changing Regarding a Pharmacist's Duty to Warn because of Pharmacists' increased role in health care and their increased educational background.

1. Common Law Changes in Pharmacists’ Immunity from Duty to Warn Suits The traditional “no duty” rule discussed above is slowly beginning to crack. Courts are recognizing pharmacists’ increased role in the health care system and their increased educational background by imposing upon them a standard of care, skill, and intelligence which ordinarily categorizes the profession.138 Some courts now treat pharmacists as they do other professionals, like physicians – their conduct in negligence suits is judged on a “reasonable professional” standard.139 Several jurisdictions around the country have adopted this “reasonable pharmacist” standard. Arizona was one of the first states to recognize a duty to warn for pharmacists. In Lasley v. Shrake’s Country Club Pharmacy, Lasley became addicted to medications prescribed to him over the course of ten years.140 Lasley sued his pharmacist for failure to provide a warning of the drugs’ addictive nature.141 The pharmacist countered that its only duty was to accurately provide Lasley with his drugs because he had a legal prescription.142 The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the pharmacists’ argument stating that the pharmacist had a “duty to act as a prudent and reasonable pharmacist,” which included warning of the drugs addictive properties.143 Other courts have likewise adopted similar “reasonable pharmacist” standards on the basis of pharmacists’ increased role as professionals and increased knowledge stemming from more rigorous schooling.144 Also, relevant to this discussion is a pharmacist’s duty to warn after the pharmacist acquires information about the patient. Several courts have recognized this duty to warn, which can be present in jurisdictions lacking the “reasonable pharmacist” standard. The Illinois Supreme Court recognized this duty in Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores. 145 In Happel, a Wal-Mart pharmacy, in an effort to minimize customer ADRs, collected data about patient allergies and stored it in their computer.146 The court held that when a pharmacist knows of a customer’s allergies and a drug is contraindicated for those allergies, the pharmacist has a duty to warn the customer of the potential consequences.147 Other jurisdictions also recognize this duty.148 Courts’ increased imposition of duties upon the pharmacy profession show that greater responsibilities will be heaped on the pharmacists because the more-professional role they have taken in the health care system in combination with the fact that they are medicine’s “safety net.”
quoted from: Michael J. Donovan,  LEGAL ISSUES STEMMING FROM THE ADVANCEMENTOF PHARMACOGENOMICS, 14 UCLA Journal of Law and Technology 1( Spring 2010)