Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories
Citation and Court
734 A.2d 1245 (N.J. 1999), Supreme Court of New Jersey
Facts
Plaintiffs suffered injuries allegedly caused by Norplant, a contraceptive implant manufactured by Wyeth. Wyeth had marketed Norplant directly to consumers through advertising campaigns, bypassing the traditional physician-intermediary relationship. Plaintiffs argued that Wyeth had a duty to warn them directly of the risks, not just their physicians.
Issue
Whether the learned intermediary doctrine shields a pharmaceutical manufacturer from liability when it markets its product directly to consumers rather than exclusively through physicians.
Holding
The court held that the learned intermediary doctrine does not apply when a pharmaceutical manufacturer engages in direct-to-consumer advertising, and that in such cases the manufacturer owes a duty to warn patients directly of material risks.
Rule / Doctrine
The learned intermediary doctrine provides that a drug manufacturer discharges its duty to warn by providing adequate warnings to prescribing physicians, who then exercise independent judgment on behalf of patients. However, when a manufacturer circumvents the physician relationship by advertising directly to consumers, it assumes a direct duty to warn those consumers because the justification for the doctrine — reliance on physician intermediaries — no longer applies.
Significance
Perez v. Wyeth is a landmark case adapting products liability doctrine to the modern era of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. It created a widely discussed exception to the learned intermediary rule and has influenced the evolving law on pharmaceutical manufacturers’ duties to warn in the DTC advertising context.