Brody v. Overlook Hospital

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Brody v. Overlook Hospital

332 A.2d 596, 66 N.J. 448, 1975 N.J. LEXIS 222

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 5, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by37 cases

This text of 332 A.2d 596 (Brody v. Overlook Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brody v. Overlook Hospital, 332 A.2d 596, 66 N.J. 448, 1975 N.J. LEXIS 222 (N.J. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In 1966 blood obtained from the Overlook Hospital and the Essex County Blood Bank was used in a transfusion during an operation on the plaintiffs decedent at the Hospital. The blood was infected with viral hepatitis but the undisputed expert testimony was that such infection was then undiscoverable. The Appellate Division held that while the Hospital and the Blood Bank were under an obligation to use due care they were not accountable under the theory of strict liability in tort. Brody v. Overlook Hospital, 127 N. J. Super. 331 (1974). Sound policy considerations dictated that result and accordingly we affirm. See Hines v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 86 N. M. 763, 527 P. 2d 1075 (1974); Annot., 54 A. L. R. 3d 258 (1973). There are indications that subsequent to 1966 tests may have become available for discovering the viral infection but for present purposes we need not consider the adequacy of these tests or whether their present availability would hereafter result in accountability under the theory of strict liability in tort. Cf. Baptista v. Saint Barnabas Medical Center, 109 *451 N. J. Super. 317 (App. Div.), aff'd, 57 N. J. 167 (1970). The Appellate Division, in the context of blood transfusions and drug-type situations (127 N. J. Super, at 339), properly placed reliance on § 403A of the Restatement Torts 3d (1966), but for present purposes we need not consider whether its requirement of a showing that the product was “unreasonably dangerous” is to be deemed generally applicable in other contexts. Cf. Glass v. Ford Motor Co., 123 N. J. Super. 599 (Law Div. 1973); Cronin v. J. B. E. Olson Corporation, 8 Cal. 3d 121, 104 Cal. Rptr. 433, 501 P. 3d 1153 (1973); Hote, 5 Seton Hall L. Rev. 153 (1973).

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman and Clieeokd and Judge Coneokd — 7.

For reversal — Hone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

In 1966 blood obtained from the Overlook Hospital and the Essex County Blood Bank was used in a transfusion during an operation on the plaintiffs decedent at the Hospital. The blood was infected with viral hepatitis but the undisputed expert testimony was that such infection was then undiscoverable. The Appellate Division held that while the Hospital and the Blood Bank were under an obligation to use due care they were not accountable under the theory of strict liability in tort. Brody v. Overlook Hospital, 127 N. J. Super. 331 (1974). Sound policy considerations dictated that result and accordingly we affirm. See Hines v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 86 N. M. 763, 527 P. 2d 1075 (1974); Annot., 54 A. L. R. 3d 258 (1973). There are indications that subsequent to 1966 tests may have become available for discovering the viral infection but for present purposes we need not consider the adequacy of these tests or whether their present availability would hereafter result in accountability under the theory of strict liability in tort. Cf. Baptista v. Saint Barnabas Medical Center, 109 *451 N. J. Super. 317 (App. Div.), aff'd, 57 N. J. 167 (1970). The Appellate Division, in the context of blood transfusions and drug-type situations (127 N. J. Super, at 339), properly placed reliance on § 403A of the Restatement Torts 3d (1966), but for present purposes we need not consider whether its requirement of a showing that the product was “unreasonably dangerous” is to be deemed generally applicable in other contexts. Cf. Glass v. Ford Motor Co., 123 N. J. Super. 599 (Law Div. 1973); Cronin v. J. B. E. Olson Corporation, 8 Cal. 3d 121, 104 Cal. Rptr. 433, 501 P. 3d 1153 (1973); Hote, 5 Seton Hall L. Rev. 153 (1973).

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman and Clieeokd and Judge Coneokd — 7.

For reversal — Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 A.2d 596, 66 N.J. 448, 1975 N.J. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brody-v-overlook-hospital-nj-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack