Royer v. Catholic Medical Center, 741 A.2d 74

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

1999

Chapter

16

Title

Product Liability

Page

686

Topic

Sale of Products or Provision of Services

Quick Notes

The Pl underwent prosthetic knee surgery.  The knee was defective.  The Pl sued the hospital as well because they sold the knee to the Pl for the surgery to take place.  Strict liability is NOT extended to health care providers that renders their services of supplying prosthesis as a service. 

Issue

o         Whether a health care provider that supplies a defective prosthesis in the course of delivering health care services is a "seller" of prosthetic devices, or is merely providing a professional service?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         Motion to dismiss in favor of the defendant

Supreme

o         Affirmed

Facts

Reason

Rules

o         Pl - Royer

o         Df - Catholic Medical

What happened?

o         Ira and Rachel Royer appealed from an order of the Superior Court granting motion to dismiss to Catholic Medical Center.

o         Basically, she underwent knee replacement surgery.

o         She was still in pain and the knee became worst.

o         The Doctor determined the prosthetic knee was defective.

o         Ira had to undergo a second prosthetic knee replacement surgery.

Suit 1

o         Dow Corning and Wright medical who were companies that designed and manufactured the defective prosthesis.

o         Dow Corning went bankrupt.

Suit 2

o         File suit against CMC, alleging that CMC was strictly liable to Ira because it had sold a prosthesis with a design defect that was in an unreasonably dangerous condition, and liable to Rachel who suffered a loss of consortium.

Loss of consortium

o         The inability of one's spouse to have normal marital relations, which is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

Trial Court

o         Granted Motion to dismiss finding CMC was not engaged in the business of selling prosthetic devices.

Supreme Court

o         Affirmed

Selling Definition

o         one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to [strict] liability for physical harm thereby caused

The reasons for the development of strict liability in tort

1.   The lack of privity between the manufacturer and the buyer,

2.   The difficulty of proving negligence against a distant manufacturer using mass production techniques, and

3.   The better ability of the mass manufacturer to spread the economic risks among consumers.

Majority Does not extend strict liability to health care providers

o         The health care provider primarily renders a service, and that the provision of a prosthetic device is merely incidental to that service.

Pl Arg

o         The distinction between selling products and providing services is a legal fiction.

o         The Df acted as both a seller of the prosthetic knee and as a provider of the services in the transaction.

o         The Df did profit from the sell of the prosthetic knee and should be treated no different than any other distributor of a defect product.

o         Df supplied the knee and the surgeon provided the service.

Ct Response

o         The question is not whether is sold or transferred the prosthetic knee, but whether the Df is engaged in the business of selling prosthetic knees.

o         We do not agree with the legal fiction argument.

Seller vs Hospital distinction

o         The essence of the transaction between the retail seller and the consumer relates to the article sold.

o         A patient does not enter a hospital to purchase a prosthesis, but to obtain a course of treatment in the hope of being cured of what ails him.

o         The selling of the prosthesis is treated as an ancillary [secondary] relationship which the court declines to ignore.

o         Other items were on the bill:  Hospital room, operating room services, physical therapy, a recovery room, pathology laboratory work, an EKG or ECG, X rays, and anesthesia.

Public Policy

o         Holding a health care provider strictly liable would likely result in higher health care costs borne ultimately by all patients.

o         Place an unrealistic burden on the physicians and hospitals of this state to test or guarantee the tens of thousands of products used in hospitals by doctors

Holding

o         A health care provider in the course of rendering health care services supplies a prosthetic device to be implanted into a patient, the health care provider is not "engaged in the business of selling" prostheses for purposes of strict products liability

Rules

The Pl underwent prosthetic knee surgery.  The knee was defective.  The Pl sued the hospital as well because they sold the knee to the Pl for the surgery to take place.  Strict liability is NOT extended to health care providers that renders their services of supplying prosthesis as a service. 

Public Policy

o         Holding a health care provider strictly liable would likely result in higher health care costs borne ultimately by all patients.

o         Place an unrealistic burden on the physicians and hospitals of this state to test or guarantee the tens of thousands of products used in hospitals by doctors

Holding

o         A health care provider in the course of rendering health care services supplies a prosthetic device to be implanted into a patient, the health care provider is not "engaged in the business of selling" prostheses for purposes of strict products liability

Class Notes