Get help now

Cafazzo and Central Medical Health Services

  • Pages 2
  • Words 417
  • Views 297
  • dovnload

    Download

    Cite

  • Pages 2
  • Words 417
  • Views 297
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    Facts Cafazzo (Plaintiff) sued Central Medical Health Services and Physician that did the surgery (Defendants) for product liability for an implanted medical device that failed six years after his surgery in 1986. Cafazzo had surgery for the implantation of a mandibular prosthesis. Cafazzo sued the hospital (Defendant) and the surgeon (Defendant) under strict product liability. Cafazzo’s suit was based on that the product was defectively designed and lacked any warning necessary to ensure safety.

    The product manufacturer, Vitek, was not named defendant because by that time they were bankrupt. The court held for Central medical, Cafazzo appealed. Issues Can a hospital and a physician be held strictly liable under the Restatement of Torts Section: 402 for defects in a product incidental to the provision of medical services? Ruling No. To decide that a surgeon and hospital is liable under circumstances for strict product liability is the same as saying that the surgical skills necessary for the implantation of the mandibular prosthesis are connected to the sale of the implant itself.

    Plaintiff did not purchase the implant from Defendants. Analysis Under restatement torts section:402 One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer. As Cafazzo sued the hospital and surgeon, this is not the case for the defendants. The defendants are not the manufacturers of the product, and it was not reasonably foreseeable that the product was defective.

    In law the idea of purchase and sale cannot be attached separately to the healing materials supplied by a hospital for a price as part of the medical services. Supplying medical services is not equal to that of the retail marketing enterprise. Doctors are not in the business of selling medical devices, they operate on the patients. Cafazzo should have sued on basis of surgery and not on the product charged to him. If he did so there could be a possibility the court would hold on his suit.

    In my view I agree with the court in this case solely because the relationship of a hospital and surgeon to a patient is not one of seller and buyer of products used in surgery. Conclusion DECIDED: NOVEMBER 28, 1995 in favor of the defendants. In this case a hospital and a physician cannot be held subject to strict liability under the Restatement of Torts 402A, for defects in a product incidental to the provision of medical services.

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Cafazzo and Central Medical Health Services. (2016, Oct 17). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/cafazzo-and-central-medical-health-services/

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy