Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank
7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101, 5 Cal.App.4th 234 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a professional negligence action, the standard of care is defined by the actual or accepted practices within that profession at the time of the alleged negligence. A professional entity cannot be held liable for failing to adopt measures that were not recognized, accepted, or implemented by the profession as a whole.
Facts:
- In January 1983, Michael Osborn was born with a life-threatening heart condition requiring surgery.
- Michael's parents, Paul and Mary Osborn, were concerned about contracting Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) from a blood transfusion and had arranged for family and friends to donate blood for the surgery.
- Three days before the operation, the Osborns visited Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, where a receptionist told them that blood donations could not be specifically designated for Michael's use.
- In fact, Irwin's internal policy at the time was to discourage, but not prohibit, such 'directed donations' if a patient's family and physician insisted.
- On February 24, 1983, three-week-old Michael underwent heart surgery and received transfusions of blood supplied by Irwin.
- In 1987, Michael tested positive for the AIDS virus, which he had contracted from the 1983 blood transfusion.
- The specific donor whose blood transmitted the virus to Michael was never identified.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Osborn and his parents sued Irwin Memorial Blood Bank and the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center in a California trial court.
- The court granted the University's motions for nonsuit and directed verdict, removing it from the case.
- Claims against Irwin for negligence, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation were submitted to a jury.
- The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against Irwin.
- Irwin filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The trial court granted Irwin's JNOV motion on the negligence and intentional misrepresentation claims, leaving only the negligent misrepresentation claim as the basis for liability.
- Both the Osborns and Irwin filed appeals to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a blood bank negligent for failing to implement blood testing and donor screening procedures that were not the accepted practice within the blood banking industry at the time, even if expert testimony suggests those procedures would have been prudent?
Opinions:
Majority - Perley, J.
No, a blood bank is not negligent for failing to implement procedures that were not the accepted practice for the profession at the time. The adequacy of a blood bank's actions to prevent blood contamination is a question of professional negligence, which must be judged by the degree of skill, knowledge, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by other blood banks under similar circumstances. The uncontradicted evidence showed that in early 1983, no blood bank in the United States was performing anti-HBc surrogate testing for AIDS, and the consensus among professional blood banking associations was that further study of the test was needed. Furthermore, Irwin's donor screening practices were consistent with, and in some respects more advanced than, the published standards of the time. Because professional prudence is defined by actual or accepted practice within a profession, rather than by retrospective theories about what should have been done, Irwin cannot be found negligent for adhering to the universal practice of its profession.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the professional standard of care in California, establishing that compliance with the universally accepted practices of a profession is a defense against negligence. It rejects the principle that an entire profession can be found negligent for lagging in the adoption of new safety measures, at least in contexts requiring specialized knowledge beyond that of a layperson. This decision provides significant protection to professionals and specialized industries by tethering the legal standard of care to the profession's own collective judgment and practices at the time, rather than allowing liability based on hindsight or competing expert theories. Consequently, it raises the bar for plaintiffs in professional malpractice cases, requiring them to show a deviation from accepted practice, not just that a better practice was theoretically available.
Unlock the full brief for Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank