Jackson v. Muhlenberg Hospital
| Decision Date | 20 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. A--15,A--15 |
| Citation | 249 A.2d 65,53 N.J. 138 |
| Parties | , 5 UCC Rep.Serv. 1245 Fannie Lou JACKSON and Culbert Jackson, her husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. MUHLENBERG HOSPITAL, a corporation, and Eastern Blood Bank, a corporation, Defendants-Respondents and Cross-Appellants, and Essex County Blood Bank, a corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Irwin B. Seligsohn, Newark, for plaintiffs (Balk, Jacobs, Goldberger & Mandell, Newark, attorneys).
Thomas T. Chappell, Jersey City, for defendant, Muhlenberg Hospital (Lamb, Blake, Hutchinson & Dunne, Jersey City, attorneys).
Eugene M. Purcell, Newark, for defendant, Eastern Blood Bank (Stevens & Mathias, Newark, attorneys).
Mrs. Jackson was hospitalized at Muhlenberg Hospital during March, 1964. While there she was operated upon and received five blood transfusions. The blood for four of the transactions was received by the Hospital from the Eastern Blood Bank and the blood for the fifth transfusion was received by it from the Essex County Blood Bank. Mrs. Jackson contracted hepatitis which she attributed to the transfusions. She and her husband sued the Hospital, the Eastern Blood Bank and the Essex County Blood Bank, charging them with negligence and with breach of an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness. The Hospital and the Eastern Blood Bank each moved for summary judgment but no such motion was filed on behalf of the Essex County Blood Bank.
The sketchy record before us discloses how little was the material furnished to the trial court in connection with the motions. An affidavit by the Medical Director of the Eastern Blood Bank set forth that two of the four units sent by it to the Hospital were received from two named individual donors and that the other two units were received from the Interstate Blood Bank of Memphis which, in turn, had received them from two named individual donors. Attached copies of questionnaires bore checkmark answers by the donors to inquiries as to their previous illnesses but contained little or nothing in the way of background information. The Director asserted flatly that 'there was no known test available to medical science to determine whether or not human blood contained the virus of Homologous Serum Hepatitis'; and he noted that each bottle of blood transferred by Eastern to the Hospital had attached to it a legend reading as follows: But the Director did not elaborate on any testing efforts which have been made to date nor did he spell out the nature of Eastern's operation, the type of neighborhood in which its premises are located, the type of donors to which it caters, or the precautionary steps it takes. See Hoder v. Sayet, 196 So.2d 205, 208--209 (Fla.Ct.App.1967). Nor did he deal at all with the respective incidences of hepatitis in blood obtained from commercial blood banks and other sources, though studies on this and related aspects of the entire hepatitis problem have heretofore been available and are currently being made available with increasing frequency. See Garibaldi, 'A New Look at Hospitals' Liability for Hepatitis Contaminated Blood on Principles of Strict Tort Liability,' 48 Chi.Bar Rec. 204 (1967); 'Medical Judgment vs. Legal Doctrine,' 49 Chi.Bar Rec. 22 (1967).
The Eastern Blood Bank is engaged in business for profit. It pays eight dollars per pint to donors and charges hospitals eighteen dollars per pint. The Muhlenberg Hospital is a nonprofit corporation. It charges its patients twenty-five dollars per pint plus twenty dollars for each transfusion. It states that its charge 'is purposely made high in order to provide an incentive for blood recipients to have a friend or relative donate a unit of blood which is then applied to offset the charge' and that 'this is considered desirable in order to avoid the necessity of purchasing blood from commercial blood banks who generally use indigent donors for their blood.' But the record does not contain anything to indicate that it notifies the patient of the stated reason for its high charge or of the inherent dangers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
...involved, a Court should exercise caution in granting summary judgment without an adequately developed record. See Jackson v. Muhlenberg Hosp., 53 N.J. 138, 249 A.2d 65 (1969). Finally, the public policy of this State, as most recently expressed by the Legislature in the "Worker and Communi......
-
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories
...the enterprise bears the liability for a product that is not fit, suitable, or safe for its intended use. Cf. Jackson v. Muhlenberg Hosp., 53 N.J. 138, 249 A.2d 65 (1969) (summary judgment dismissal of suit against hospital and blood bank by plaintiff, who contracted hepatitis allegedly due......
-
Miles Laboratories, Inc. Cutter Laboratories Div. v. Doe
... ... Several days later she was admitted to Shady Grove Adventist Hospital suffering from profuse vaginal bleeding. Her bleeding could not initially be controlled although ... American National Red Cross, 240 Ga. 246, 240 S.E.2d 247 (1977); Hill v. Jackson Park Hospital, 39 Ill.App.3d 223, 349 N.E.2d 541 (1976); and Brown v. Superior Court, supra, ... See McMichael, supra, 532 S.W.2d at 11; ... Page 738 ... Jackson v. Muhlenberg Hospital, 96 N.J. Super 314, 232 A.2d 879, 884, (1967), rev'd on other grounds, 53 N.J. 138, 249 ... ...
-
Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
...Of course, courts should exercise appropriate caution in deciding issues involving policy considerations. Jackson v. Muhlenberg Hospital, 53 N.J. 138, 142, 249 A.2d 65 (1969). However, excessive caution would undercut the purposes of a motion for summary judgment, which provides a means for......