Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantnegligencetrialverdict

contractplaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealverdict

Related Cases

Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, 5 Cal.App.4th 234, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, 73 Ed. Law Rep. 1067

Facts

Michael Osborn was born with a rare heart condition and underwent surgery at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center, where he received blood from Irwin Memorial Blood Bank. The Osborns, concerned about AIDS, sought to have directed donations for Michael's surgery but were misinformed by the blood bank's receptionist that such donations could not be earmarked for him. After the surgery, Michael tested positive for AIDS, which he contracted from the transfusion.

In February of 1983, at the age of three weeks, Michael Osborn contracted the AIDS virus from a blood transfusion in the course of surgery on his heart at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center.

Issue

Whether the blood bank was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of negligence and whether the misrepresentation regarding directed donations proximately caused Michael's injury.

The most significant issue on appeal is whether Irwin was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of negligence.

Rule

Recovery for negligent misrepresentation involving a risk of physical harm requires proof that the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care, gave false information, the plaintiff relied on that information, and that reliance proximately caused the injury.

Recovery for negligent misrepresentation involving a risk of physical harm requires proof that: (1) the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care in giving the information in question; (2) the defendant gave false information with a degree of culpability at least equal to negligence; (3) the plaintiff actually and reasonably relied on the misrepresentation; and (4) reliance on the misrepresentation proximately caused the plaintiff's injury or death.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that while the Osborns relied on the receptionist's misrepresentation, the lack of scientific proof regarding the safety of directed donations did not preclude a finding of proximate cause. The court concluded that the exclusion of evidence regarding Michael's rare blood type was prejudicial, as it could have influenced the jury's understanding of whether directed donations would have been feasible.

A causal connection between the misrepresentation and the harm is readily apparent, as a matter of common sense, in Michael's case. Conduct can be considered a substantial factor in bringing about harm if it has created a force or series of forces which are in continuous and active operation up to the time of the harm.

Conclusion

The court reversed in part and remanded for a new trial on the claim of negligent misrepresentation, while affirming the judgment in favor of the university.

We therefore hold that lack of scientific proof of the relative safety of directed donations is not conclusive in Irwin's favor on the issue of proximate cause.

Who won?

The blood bank prevailed on the claims of intentional misrepresentation and negligence, as the court found that it could not be held liable under those theories due to the lack of evidence supporting them.

Irwin was thus held liable only for a negligent misrepresentation.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Wells v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Ass’n, 122 Minn. 327, 142 N.W. 706, 46 L.R.A.N.S. 606, Am.Ann.Cas. 1914D,922

Taylor v. Metzger, 152 N.J. 490, 706 A.2d 685, 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 58, 72 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,231

Roberts v. English Mfg. Co., 155 Ala. 414, 46 So. 752

Marks v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 3322594, 43 NDLR P 220

Glidden v. Szybiak, 95 N.H. 318, 63 A.2d 233