Farrell v. Johnson & Johnson

Summary

The court affirmed the judgment rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenges to the exclusion of two medical-journal articles and the directed verdict on innocent misrepresentation. The articles were not admissible to prove notice because the plaintiffs did not establish that the physician read them or was independently obligated to know their contents. Innocent misrepresentation did not apply because the physician’s treatment of the patient was a provision of medical services rather than a sale, rental, or exchange transaction, and strict liability for treatment-related statements would conflict with informed-consent principles.