For Your Data Cafazzo V. Key Medical Wellness Services, Inc. Representative Brief
July 27, 2020
Edit
Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc. illustration brief summary
668 A.2d 521 (Pa. 1995)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, patient too wife, challenged the superior court's determination to affirm the lawsuit court's conclusion that appellants' complaint failed to nation a claim upon which relief could bring been granted. Appellants contended that appellees, medico too hospital, were strictly liable for a defective prosthetic that was sold to appellant patient equally appellees provided, sold, or otherwise placed the defective production into the flow of commerce.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the conclusion of the superior courtroom to affirm the lawsuit courtroom decision, equally the complaint failed to nation a claim upon which relief could bring been granted. Appellees, infirmary too doctor, were non strictly liable for products used incidental to providing medical services, equally they were non inward the describe concern of selling the alleged defective product.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
668 A.2d 521 (Pa. 1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, patient too wife, sought review of the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to affirm the conclusion of the lawsuit court, which granted the demurer past times appellees, medico too hospital, too held that appellants' complaint, that alleged strict liability for a defective prosthesis, failed to nation a claim.CASE FACTS
Appellants, patient too wife, challenged the superior court's determination to affirm the lawsuit court's conclusion that appellants' complaint failed to nation a claim upon which relief could bring been granted. Appellants contended that appellees, medico too hospital, were strictly liable for a defective prosthetic that was sold to appellant patient equally appellees provided, sold, or otherwise placed the defective production into the flow of commerce.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom affirmed the judgment of the superior court.
- The courtroom held that appellees were non sellers, providers, suppliers, or distributors for the application of strict liability too were non inward the describe concern of selling the defective product.
- The job of the production was incidental to the principal business office of providing medical services, fifty-fifty if at that topographic point was to a greater extent than or less surcharge on the cost of the product.
- The courtroom held that fifty-fifty if appellees were sellers, they would non bring been liable.
- The purposes of strict liability would non bring been served, equally appellees had no command over distribution of the production to throttle such distribution too were non responsible for the security testing or the licensing.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the conclusion of the superior courtroom to affirm the lawsuit courtroom decision, equally the complaint failed to nation a claim upon which relief could bring been granted. Appellees, infirmary too doctor, were non strictly liable for products used incidental to providing medical services, equally they were non inward the describe concern of selling the alleged defective product.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law