Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
180 Cal. App. 3d 493 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital that furnishes a defective product to a patient as part of a medical procedure is considered a provider of services, not a seller of goods, and therefore cannot be held strictly liable for the product's defects.
Facts:
- Frances J. Hector's physician, Dr. Eugene Kompaniez, determined she needed a pacemaker.
- Dr. Kompaniez ordered a specific pacemaker directly from its manufacturer, American Technology, Inc.
- The pacemaker was delivered to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center for Hector's scheduled implantation surgery.
- Dr. Kompaniez implanted the defective pacemaker into Hector at Cedars-Sinai.
- Cedars-Sinai did not stock, recommend, or test pacemakers; its role was to provide the operating room, pre- and post-operative care, and administrative services like billing.
- Cedars-Sinai billed Hector for the cost of the pacemaker plus a routine surcharge as part of the total cost for her medical treatment.
- The pacemaker implanted in Hector proved to be defective, causing her personal injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances J. Hector filed a complaint against Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in a California trial court, alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty.
- Cedars-Sinai filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the strict liability and breach of warranty causes of action.
- The trial court granted Cedars-Sinai's motion.
- Hector then voluntarily dismissed her remaining negligence claim against Cedars-Sinai to make the trial court's order final and appealable.
- The trial court issued an order dismissing the strict liability and breach of warranty claims.
- Hector (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal, with Cedars-Sinai (appellee) as the responding party.
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 doctrine of strict products liability apply to a hospital that provides a patient with a defective pacemaker during a surgical procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Spencer, P. J.
No. The doctrine of strict products liability does not apply because a hospital is a provider of professional medical services, not a seller of products. The court reasoned that the essence of the relationship between a hospital and a patient is the provision of a course of treatment, not the sale of a product. Unlike a retailer, a hospital is not a mere link in the commercial chain of distribution; it provides care, skill, and facilities. The pacemaker, while essential to the treatment, was incidental to the primary service of medical care provided by the hospital. The court further noted that public policy considerations underlying strict liability—such as placing responsibility on those who can pressure manufacturers for safer products—would not be served by applying the doctrine to hospitals, which do not select or test these specialized devices.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'services versus sales' distinction for healthcare providers under California products liability law. It establishes that a hospital's primary function is providing medical services, and any products used during treatment are incidental to that service, thus shielding the hospital from strict liability. This forces plaintiffs injured by defective medical devices to pursue claims against the manufacturer or prove that the hospital was negligent, a higher burden than strict liability. The ruling clarifies that even billing for a product with a significant markup does not transform a healthcare provider into a 'seller' for liability purposes, focusing instead on the essential character of the transaction.
Unlock the full brief for Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center