Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc. case
brief summary
668 A.2d 521 (Pa. 1995)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, patient and wife, challenged the superior court's determination to affirm the trial court's conclusion that appellants' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could have been granted. Appellants contended that appellees, doctor and hospital, were strictly liable for a defective prosthetic that was sold to appellant patient as appellees provided, sold, or otherwise placed the defective product into the stream of commerce.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the decision of the superior court to affirm the trial court decision, as the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could have been granted. Appellees, hospital and doctor, were not strictly liable for products used incidental to providing medical services, as they were not in the business of selling the alleged defective product.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
668 A.2d 521 (Pa. 1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, patient and
wife, sought review of the decision of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania to affirm the decision of the trial court, which granted
the demurer by appellees, doctor and hospital, and held that
appellants' complaint, that alleged strict liability for a defective
prosthesis, failed to state a claim.CASE FACTS
Appellants, patient and wife, challenged the superior court's determination to affirm the trial court's conclusion that appellants' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could have been granted. Appellants contended that appellees, doctor and hospital, were strictly liable for a defective prosthetic that was sold to appellant patient as appellees provided, sold, or otherwise placed the defective product into the stream of commerce.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the judgment of the superior court.
- The court held that appellees were not sellers, providers, suppliers, or distributors for the application of strict liability and were not in the business of selling the defective product.
- The use of the product was incidental to the primary function of providing medical services, even if there was some surcharge on the price of the product.
- The court held that even if appellees were sellers, they would not have been liable.
- The purposes of strict liability would not have been served, as appellees had no control over distribution of the product to limit such distribution and were not responsible for the safety testing or the licensing.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the decision of the superior court to affirm the trial court decision, as the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could have been granted. Appellees, hospital and doctor, were not strictly liable for products used incidental to providing medical services, as they were not in the business of selling the alleged defective product.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment