Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr.

California Court of Appeal · 1986 · Torts

180 Cal. App. 3d 493 (1986)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsStrict products liabilityHospitalsBreach of warrantystrict liabilityhospital servicesproduct versus servicepacemaker

Facts

Plaintiff alleged she was injured by a defective pacemaker manufactured by American Technology, Inc. and implanted at Cedars-Sinai by her physician, Dr. Kompaniez. The surgeon selected and ordered the pacemaker directly from the manufacturer, and the device was delivered to the operating room on the day of surgery. Cedars-Sinai did not routinely stock, recommend, distribute, sell, or test pacemakers, but it provided the operating room, technicians, and pre- and post-operative care and handled administrative paperwork and billing. The hospital billed the patient for the pacemaker with an 85 percent surcharge as part of its overall rate structure.

Issue

Whether Cedars-Sinai could be held strictly liable, or liable for breach of warranty, for an allegedly defective pacemaker implanted in plaintiff when the hospital furnished the device as part of medical treatment. More specifically, the question was whether the hospital was engaged in the business of selling pacemakers or was instead a provider of medical services.

Rule

Strict products liability applies to those engaged in the business of selling a product and who are integral parts of the production or marketing enterprise. A hospital is not strictly liable for a defective product furnished in the course of treatment when the product's provision is integrally related to the hospital's primary function of providing medical services rather than to a business of selling products. The same characterization defeats a breach of warranty theory.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, Nina Alvarez underwent spinal surgery at Harbor Mesa Medical Pavilion. Her surgeon selected a fixation rod from a manufacturer and had it delivered directly to the operating room for Nina's procedure; the hospital did not stock or recommend such rods but billed Nina for the rod along with operating room, nursing, and recovery services.

If the rod was defectively manufactured and injured Nina, is the hospital most likely strictly liable for the defect?

Explanation. Strict liability applies to those engaged in the business of selling the product and who are an integral part of the production or marketing enterprise. A hospital is not strictly liable when it furnishes a device as part of treatment and the essence of the relationship is medical services, not a product sale. The separate billing does not change that, and the case does not create a blanket hospital exemption.