Snyder v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks
282 N.J. Super. 23, 659 A.2d 482 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A national trade association that sets binding safety standards for its industry members owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of its members' products. The association can be held liable for negligence if its failure to recommend reasonable and available safety precautions enhances the risk of harm to those consumers.
Facts:
- The American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) is a trade association that creates and enforces standards for nearly all voluntary blood banks in the United States, including the Bergen Community Blood Center (BCBC).
- Beginning in 1981, scientific evidence emerged showing that a new immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was likely caused by a blood-transmissible agent and that its epidemiological patterns mirrored those of hepatitis B.
- In a January 1983 meeting, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) presented data to the AABB and others suggesting that a surrogate test, the hepatitis B core antibody test, could effectively screen out a high percentage of donors at risk for AIDS.
- Despite the CDC's findings and growing scientific consensus, the AABB recommended against its member institutions using any surrogate testing to screen the blood supply for AIDS.
- BCBC, following the AABB's recommendations, did not implement surrogate testing.
- In August 1984, William Snyder underwent coronary bypass surgery and received a blood transfusion with blood supplied by BCBC.
- As a result of the transfusion, Snyder was infected with HIV.
- Subsequent investigation revealed that the donor of the contaminated blood would have, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, tested positive on the hepatitis B core test had it been administered in 1984.
Procedural Posture:
- William Snyder and his wife Roslyn sued the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) and others in a New Jersey trial court for negligence.
- Following settlements and dismissals involving other parties, the case proceeded to a jury trial solely against the AABB.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Snyders, finding the AABB was negligent in not recommending surrogate testing for AIDS and that this negligence was a 30% causative factor in William Snyder's infection.
- The trial court entered a judgment against AABB for its 30% share of the total damages awarded by the jury.
- The AABB appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 a national blood bank trade association, which sets industry standards, owe a duty of care to a patient who receives a blood transfusion from one of its member institutions, and can it be found negligent for failing to recommend available surrogate testing to screen for high-risk donors?
Opinions:
Majority - Pressler, P.J.A.D.
Yes. A national trade association like the AABB owes a duty of care to blood recipients and can be held liable for its negligent failure to recommend appropriate safety measures. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding that the AABB's unique and dominant role in the blood banking industry created a duty of care to patients like Snyder. The AABB's function is quasi-governmental; it sets the standards that its members, such as BCBC, are required to follow. Given the foreseeability and severity of the risk posed by AIDS, the AABB's failure to recommend surrogate testing was a breach of this duty. The court also held that the 'enhanced risk' doctrine of causation was appropriate, as the AABB's negligence substantially increased the probability that Snyder would receive contaminated blood. Finally, the court rejected the AABB's claim of charitable immunity, reasoning that its primary functions as a standard-setting, accrediting, and lobbying body were not 'exclusively' charitable in nature.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that a powerful, standard-setting trade association can be held directly liable to an end-user for its negligent recommendations or omissions. It extends the concept of duty of care beyond the immediate service provider to the national organization that dictates industry-wide practices. The case solidifies the application of the 'enhanced risk' theory of causation in a complex medical context, allowing recovery where a defendant's negligence increased the plaintiff's risk of harm, even if it cannot be proven that the harm would have been avoided with absolute certainty. This precedent holds industry associations accountable for keeping their standards aligned with current scientific knowledge and reasonable safety practices.
