Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

lawsuittortplaintiffdefendantdamagesliabilitytrialstrict liability
tortplaintiffdefendantliabilitystrict liability

Related Cases

Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 188 N.W.2d 426
View Case »
Shoemake v. Fogel, Ltd., 826 S.W.2d 933, 60 USLW 2572
View Case »
Serota v. M. & M. Utilities, Inc., 55 Misc.2d 286, 285 N.Y.S.2d 121
View Case »
Johnson v. Wayne County, 213 Mich.App. 143, 540 N.W.2d 66
View Case »
Everitt v. General Elec. Co., 156 N.H. 202, 932 A.2d 831
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Silverhart v. Mount Zion Hospital, 20 Cal.App.3d 1022, 98 Cal.Rptr. 187, 54 A.L.R.3d 250

Facts

In December 1964, the plaintiff underwent a vaginal hysterectomy at the defendant hospital, performed by Dr. K. Warren Newgard. During the procedure, a surgical needle broke, with part of it becoming lodged in the plaintiff's pelvic area. Dr. Newgard, who had over 26 years of surgical experience, continued the operation, and the plaintiff had a normal recovery. The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit against the hospital, claiming damages due to the defective needle.

During the operation, while Dr. Newgard was inserting the first suture in the vaginal area, a surgical needle broke and two-thirds of the sharp end of the needle receded into the lower pelvic area, where it has remained imbedded.

Issue

Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of strict liability in tort regarding the hospital's liability for the defective surgical needle?

Plaintiff first contends that the court erred in not instructing the jury that defendant was strictly liable in tort if the needle was defective.

Rule

The doctrine of strict liability in tort applies only to those engaged in the business of selling a product, and a hospital providing medical services is not considered a seller of the products used in those services.

The doctrine of strict liability in tort was first applied in this state in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897, a case involving a manufacturer of a product.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between the hospital and the surgical needle, concluding that the hospital was not in the business of selling surgical needles but was instead a user of the needle in the context of providing medical services. The court referenced previous cases that established the criteria for strict liability and determined that the hospital did not meet those criteria as it was not a seller of the product but rather a provider of medical care.

We are persuaded, moreover, that the rule of strict liability adopted by the courts of this state precludes the application of that doctrine to a hospital under the circumstances of this case.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant hospital, concluding that the strict liability doctrine did not apply in this case.

In sum, the hospital itself was a User of the needle since such needle was supplied to the hospital for its use in performing medical services incident to the normal and ordinary business of the hospital.

Who won?

The defendant hospital prevailed because the court found that it was not liable under the doctrine of strict liability, as it was not engaged in the business of selling the surgical needle.

The court concluded that the hospital was not ordinarily engaged in the business of selling any of the products or equipment it uses in providing such services.

You must be