Friedman

Friedman v. Merck & Co.

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 454·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 885·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 451·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3409·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2643
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 26, 2003No. B155272California12,914 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Turner, J.

*461 Opinion

I. Introduction

Plaintiff, Jerold Daniel Friedman, appeals from a judgment, following the sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend, in favor of defendants, Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Ventures, Inc., Astra Merck, Inc., and Merck Hamilton, Inc. Plaintiff, a strict ethical vegan, alleged he suffered serious emotional, and subsequent physical, injuries when he discovered a tuberculosis (TB) test he had submitted to contained animal products. He further alleged defendants, the distributors of the TB test, negligently misrepresented, upon inquiry, that the test did not contain animal products and was “Vegan ‘safe’ ” and “Vegan ‘friendly.’ ” We conclude plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for: negligence; negligent infliction of emotional distress; or negligent misrepresentation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

II. Background

A. The Second and Third Amended Complaints ’ Allegations

Plaintiff alleged: he is a strict ethical vegan; he fervently believes it is immoral and unethical to kill or exploit animals for any purpose; and “[h]e lives each aspect of his life” accordingly. He applied for a position with Southern California Permanente Medical Group. He…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.