Brown v. United Blood Services
109 Nev. 758, 858 P. 2d 391, 1993 Nev. LEXIS 123 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A blood bank's liability for negligence in screening donors and testing blood is judged by a professional standard of care, which requires plaintiffs to prove the blood bank's conduct fell below the standards promulgated and practiced by the industry at that time.
Facts:
- On June 5, 1984, Jeffrey Clark suffered a severe shotgun wound and required extensive surgery and blood transfusions to save his life.
- Most of the blood Clark received was supplied by United Blood Services (UBS), a non-profit blood bank.
- One unit of plasma, donated to UBS by a man identified as 'John Donor' on May 4, 1984, was transfused into Clark on June 7, 1984.
- At the time of the 1984 donation, UBS provided donors with an 'Important Notice' identifying high-risk groups for AIDS and asking them to voluntarily refrain from donating.
- In May 1985, 'John Donor' returned to UBS to donate blood and his blood subsequently tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
- In December 1986, Clark was informed he may have received contaminated blood and his own blood then tested positive for the HIV antibody.
- Clark was diagnosed with an AIDS-indicative opportunistic disease in September 1988.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 9, 1988, Jeffrey Clark filed a negligence action against United Blood Services (UBS) in trial court.
- The trial court denied UBS's motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found in favor of Clark, awarding him $970,000 in damages.
- UBS filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or for a new trial.
- The trial court denied the JNOV motion but granted remittitur, reducing the damage award and ordering a new trial if Clark refused the reduced amount.
- Clark rejected the remittitur, and the court ordered a new trial.
- Clark appealed the trial court's order for remittitur and a new trial.
- UBS cross-appealed the court's denial of its motion for a directed verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the professional standard of care, rather than an ordinary negligence standard, apply to a blood bank's procedures for screening donors and testing blood for infectious diseases like HIV?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a professional standard of care applies. The production and safeguarding of the nation's blood supply is a professional activity that should be judged by the standards of the profession, not by an ordinary negligence standard. The court reasoned that determinations about blood testing and donor screening require specialized expertise to balance the safety of the blood supply against its availability. A lay jury is not equipped to make these judgments. The court joined a growing consensus of jurisdictions holding that blood banks are liable only if their procedures fall below the standards practiced by the industry, or if the plaintiff can prove that the entire industry's standards were unacceptably deficient given the available scientific knowledge. Applying this standard, the court found that Clark failed to prove that UBS's conduct in May 1984 deviated from the prevailing industry standards regarding donor questioning or surrogate testing for AIDS.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the professional standard of care to blood banks, shielding them from liability based on what a lay jury might deem reasonable in hindsight. It aligns the jurisdiction with the majority rule, which defers to the collective wisdom and established practices of the blood banking industry and its regulatory bodies. This decision makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence claims against blood banks, especially for events during the early stages of the AIDS crisis, as they must prove a deviation from industry norms or, more challengingly, that the entire industry's standard of care was itself negligent.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. United Blood Services