Brody v. Overlook Hospital
Decision Date | 05 February 1975 |
Citation | 332 A.2d 596,66 N.J. 448 |
Parties | Sarah BRODY, Executrix of the Estate of Eugene Brody, deceased, and Sarah Brody, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OVERLOOK HOSPITAL, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, and Essex County Blood Bank, Defendants-Respondents, and Bernard Erdman et al., Defendants, and William U. Cavallaro, Defendant. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Henry Spielvogel, Livingston, for defendant William U. Cavallaro (Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, McCoid & Spielvogel, Livingston, attorneys).
John J. Francis, Jr., Newark, for N.J. Blood Bank Ass'n amicus curiae (Shanley & Fisher, Newark, attorneys; Albert L. Struck, III, Newark, on the brief).
Eugene M. Haring, Princeton, for N.J. Hospital Ass'n amicus curiae (McCarter & English, Newark, attorneys; Woodruff J. English, Newark, of counsel; Frederick B. Lehlbach, Newark, on the brief).
Ira J. Zarin, Newark, for plaintiff-appellant (Zarin & Maran, Newark, attorneys).
William P. Ries, Maplewood, for defendant-respondent Overlook Hospital.
Bartholomew A. Longo, Elizabeth, for defendant-respondent Essex County Blood Bank (Ryan, Saros, Davis & Stone, Elizabeth, attorneys).
In 1966 blood obtained from the Overlook Hospital and the Essex County Blood Bank was used in a transfusion during an operation on the plaintiff's decedent at the Hospital. The blood was infected with viral hepatitis but the undisputed expert testimony was that such infection was then undiscoverable. The Appellate Division held that while the Hospital and the Blood Bank were under an obligation to use due care they were not accountable under the theory of strict liability in tort. Brody v. Overlook Hospital, 127 N.J.Super. 331, 317 A.2d 392 (1974). Sound policy considerations dictated that result and accordingly we affirm. See Hines v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 86 N.M. 763, 527 P.2d 1075 (1974); Annot., 54 A.L.R.3d 258 (1973). There are indications that subsequent to 1966 tests may have become available for discovering the viral infectiion but for present purposes we need not consider the adequacy of these tests or whether their present availability would hereafter result in accountability under the theory of strict liability in tort. Cf. Baptista v. Saint Barnabas Medical Center, 109 N.J.Super. 217, 262 A.2d 902 (App.Div.), aff'd, 57 N.J. 167, 270 A.2d 409 (1970). The Appellate Division, in the context of blood transfusions and drug-type situations (127 N.J.Super. at 339, 317 A.2d 392), properly placed reliance on § 402A of the Restatement Torts 2d (1966), but for present purposes we need not consider whether its requirement of a showing that the product was 'unreasonably dangerous' is to be deemed generally...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schultz v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark
...Overlook Hosp., 121 N.J.Super. 299, 296 A.2d 668 (Law Div.1972), rev'd, 127 N.J.Super. 331, 317 A.2d 392 (App.Div.1974), aff'd, 66 N.J. 448, 332 A.2d 596 (1975). Whether immunity should cloak those with a reckless or gross disregard for the safety of others is a question that may have to be......
-
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories
...Medical Center, 109 N.J.Super. 217, 262 A.2d 902 (App.Div.), aff'd o.b., 57 N.J. 167, 270 A.2d 409 (1970); and Brody v. Overlook Hosp., 66 N.J. 448, 332 A.2d 596 (1975). Most recently we acknowledged that principle in O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169, 186, 463 A.2d 298 Certain principle......
-
Gaston v. Hunter
... ... He suggested conservative treatment, and Mrs. Gaston was admitted to St. Luke's Hospital that day for pelvic traction. She remained in the hospital for approximately eight days, and was ... E. g., McMichael v. American Red Cross, 532 S.W.2d 7 (Ky.Ct.App.1975) (blood); Brody v. Overlook Hospital, 127 N.J.Super. 331, 317 A.2d 392 (1974) (blood), Aff'd, 66 N.J ... Page ... ...
-
Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Mach. Co.
...the answer being dependent upon a consideration of all relevant factors to decide what is fair and just. See Brody v. Overlook Hospital, 66 N.J. 448, 332 A.2d 596 (1975); Newmark v. Gimbel's Inc., 54 N.J. 585, 596-597, 258 A.2d 697 (1969); Caputzal v. Lindsay Co., 48 N.J. 69, 75, 222 A.2d 5......