FAITH PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
ORTHO PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed judgment for Ortho Pharmaceutical on a failure-to-warn claim regarding birth control pills and stroke risk because the jury's finding of no causation between the pill and plaintiff's stroke rendered the direct-warning issue moot.
When a jury finds no causal relationship between a product and injury, the adequacy of direct warnings to the plaintiff becomes moot.
[1] When a jury finds no causal nexus between a product and the plaintiff's injury, the issue of whether the manufacturer adequately warned the plaintiff directly becomes moo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFaith Parker used Ortho Pharmaceutical's birth control pills and suffered a stroke. The trial court dismissed her claim for direct warning of stroke r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a final judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, a manufacturer of birth control pills, on appellant Faith Parker’s claim that appellee failed to adequately warn her and her physicians of the increased risk of stroke by use of the pills. We affirm because we have concluded that the issue presented on appeal has been rendered moot.
Before trial, the trial court dismissed appellant’s claim that she was entitled to be directly warned of the risk of stroke. That is the issue presented on appeal. The case went to trial, however, on the claim that appellee failed to adequately warn appellant’s physicians. A jury found that appel-lee had failed to adequately warn, but found no causal relationship between the inadequate warnings and appellant’s stroke. Appellee now claims that the appeal has been mooted by this jury finding since appellant’s claim must fail if she cannot prove causation between the pill and her stroke. The only response to this claim of mootness by appellant is an assertion that she would present different evidence at another trial. We find this response inadequate. Based upon appellant’s concession that the jury found no causal relation between the pill and appellant’s stroke we hold that the issue of the adequacy of the warnings given to appellant directly is moot. Accordingly we affirm the final judgment entered in favor of the appellees.
ANSTEAD, and DELL, JJ., and WARNER, MARTHA C., Associate Judge, concur.