Factual background
In 1983, Michael Osborn, an infant, underwent surgery to repair a congenital heart defect. During that surgery, Osborn received a blood transfusion. At the time of the transfusion, donated blood was not routinely tested for human immunodeficiency virus, because the cause of AIDS had not definitively been identified yet.
A congenital heart defect (CHD), also known as a congenital heart anomaly or congenital heart disease, is a problem in the structure of the heart that is present at birth. Signs and symptoms depend on the specific type of problem. Symptoms can vary from none to life-threatening. When present they may include rapid breathing, bluish skin, poor weight gain, and feeling tired. It does not cause chest pain. Most congenital heart problems do not occur with other diseases. Complications that can result from heart defects include heart failure.
Fearing that AIDS could be transmitted by blood, the Osborns had requested to make directed blood donations specifically earmarked for use by Michael. They first contacted the surgeon, who informed them that they needed to contact the blood bank. The receptionist at the blood bank, however, said that directed donations were not allowed, and so the surgery proceeded using blood from the public supply. He subsequently was diagnosed with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
The trial
The patient and his family sued the University of California (where the surgery occurred) and the Irwin Memorial Blood Bank (which supplied the blood) for multiple causes of action. A jury trial took place. The blood bank introduced evidence that its safety procedures were at least as good as those generally prevailing at the time. The blood bank also sought to introduce evidence that, because the patient was type A negative, he could not receive any donations from members of his family, as a result of which only a small amount of blood (or no blood at all) would have been able to be provided by means of directed donation, but the judge did not allow defendants to present this evidence to the jury.
Blood Centers of the Pacific is a community based, nonprofit blood center that collects blood donations and provides safe blood and blood components for transfusion and also related services to more than 40 hospitals in the Bay Area and Northern California. An affiliate of United Blood Services, the second largest blood collection organization in the U.S., it also houses the Blood Systems Research Institute
A blood type is a classification of blood, based on the presence and absence of antibodies and inherited antigenic substances on the surface of red blood cells (RBCs). These antigens may be proteins, carbohydrates, glycoproteins, or glycolipids, depending on the blood group system. Some of these antigens are also present on the surface of other types of cells of various tissues. Several of these red blood cell surface antigens can stem from one allele and collectively form a blood group system. Blood types are inherited and represent contributions from both parents. A total of 36 human blood group systems and 346 antigens are now recognized by the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT). The two most important ones are ABO and the Rh blood group systems; they determine someone's blood type for suitability in blood transfusion.
At the conclusion of the evidence the trial judge granted the defendants' motions for nonsuit on several of the causes of action, and directed a verdict in favor of the university on the remaining causes of action. Thus, only the blood bank remained as a defendant, and the following questions were submitted to the jury:
- Was the blood bank negligent?
- Did the blood bank commit the tort of intentional misrepresentation when the receptionist stated that directed blood donations were not allowed?
- Did the blood bank commit the tort of negligent misrepresentation when the receptionist stated that directed blood donations were not allowed?
A concept of English law, a misrepresentation is an untrue or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party into the contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them a total of $750,000. The blood bank moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and also moved for an amended judgment on the grounds that the damages awarded were in excess of those allowed under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). The trial court acknowledged that it had erred when it had held that MICRA did not apply, and the blood bank moved for a new trial.
The court granted the blood bank's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the counts of negligence and intentional misrepresentation and, conditioned on the plaintiffs' acceptance, reduced the award to $416,307. Both sides appealed.
In the common law of torts, res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the necessary elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the elements of duty of care, breach, and causation are inferred from an injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law. In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal".
In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion may be called the movant, or may simply be the moving party. The party opposing the motion is the nonmovant or nonmoving party.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff. The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United States Supreme Court justice.
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 (CP) is a leading English tort law case that first introduced the concept of the reasonable person in law.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals : the Bolam test. Where the defendant has represented him- or herself as having more than average skills and abilities, that is as a professional "as all doctors do", this test expects standards which must be in accordance with a responsible body of opinion, even if others differ in opinion. In other words, the Bolam test states that "If a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent".
A motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts.
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), was a Supreme Court case which held that a credit reporting agency could be liable in defamation if it carelessly relayed false information that a business had declared bankruptcy when in fact it had not.
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 is an English criminal law case establishing the role of the jury in finding liability for death, where subsequent medical negligence occurs following the original injury. The Court of Appeal found that the jury did not have to weigh up different causes of death, and need only be satisfied that the defendant's actions made a "significant contribution" to the victim's death.
Trimarco v. Klein Ct. of App. of N.Y., 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 (1982) is a 1982 decision by the New York Court of Appeals dealing with the use of custom in determining whether a person acted reasonably given the situation. It is commonly studied in introductory U.S. tort law classes.
Martin v. Herzog, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920), was a New York Court of Appeals case.
Albrighton v RPA Hospital, is a tort law case concerning the application of the Bolam test for professional negligence.
Price v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 113 U.S. 218 (1885), was a case where the plaintiff sued the defendant for the loss of her husband by a death which the jury found, by a special verdict, to be caused by the negligence of the company's servant or servants.
Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645 (1946), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a negligent wrongful death case against a railroad employer under the Federal Employers Liability Act. L.E. Haney was a switchtender who was killed at Grand Central Station in Memphis, Tennessee. He worked for both the Illinois Central and Frisco railroads.
Baylis v. Travelers' Insurance Company, 113 U.S. 316 (1885), was a case where after close of testimony in a trial, the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict. This motion was denied and the plaintiff asked that the case be submitted to the jury to determine the facts on the evidence. The court refused this, and plaintiff excepted. The court then ordered a verdict for plaintiff, subject to its opinion, whether the facts proved were sufficient to render defendant liable to plaintiff on the cause of action stated. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the verdict, and defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and minutes of trial. Judgment was rendered for defendant upon an opinion of the court as to the effect of the evidence and as to the law on the facts as deduced from it by the court. Held that the plaintiff was thereby deprived of his constitutional right to a trial by jury, which he had not waived, and to which he was entitled.
Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932) is a US tort law case regarding negligent misstatement, decided by Cardozo, C.J. It contained the now famous line on "floodgates" that the law should not admit "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."
Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California involving an injury caused by an exploding bottle of Coca-Cola. It was an important case in the development of the common law of product liability in the United States, not so much for the actual majority opinion, but for the concurring opinion of California Supreme Court justice Roger Traynor.
Nowatske v. Osterloh, 198 Wis.2d 419, 543 N.W.2d 265, on remand, 201 Wis.2d 497, 549 N.W.2d 256, is a case relating to the law of medical malpractice in Wisconsin.
George Thomas Baxter is an attorney who fought for the rights of victims of AIDS and won the landmark verdict against the blood industry for allowing the United States blood supply to be contaminated with AIDS in the early 1980s. A resident of Ridgewood, New Jersey, Baxter was born in Passaic, New Jersey and graduated from Rutgers Law School in 1983.
