Farrell v. Johnson & Johnson

Summary

The court affirmed the judgment upholding exclusion of two medical-journal articles and directing a verdict on the innocent-misrepresentation claim. The articles could not be used to prove notice because the plaintiffs did not establish that the physician read them or reasonably should have read them, and their authority was contested. Innocent misrepresentation did not apply because the physician provided medical services rather than engaging in a qualifying commercial transaction, and imposing strict liability for statements made during treatment would conflict with Connecticut's informed-consent framework.