Magrine v. Krasnica

Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County Court, Law Division · 1967 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityStrict liabilityMedical malpracticeServices versus salesstrict liabilityproducts liabilitydentist

Facts

Plaintiff Frances Magrine was defendant dentist's patient when he administered a local anesthetic using a hypodermic needle inserted into her jaw area. The needle, which had been used approximately eight times over about three weeks and had been assembled by the dentist just before the injection, separated at the hub during the injection, leaving its full 1 5/8-inch length in her jaw. The dentist did not know what caused the break but believed the needle must have had some defect, and he did not know from whom he had purchased it. Plaintiffs stipulated that they made no claim that the dentist acted negligently or failed to act as a reasonably prudent person would have under the circumstances.

Issue

Can a dentist be held strictly liable, absent negligence, when a hypodermic needle with a latent defect breaks during treatment and injures a patient? More specifically, does strict products liability or warranty extend to a professional who merely uses, rather than supplies, a defective instrument in rendering medical or dental services?

Rule

Strict liability in this context applies to those who create the danger, possess superior capacity or expertise to control, inspect, or discover defects, or put the product into the stream of trade and promote its purchase by the public. A dentist or physician who is paid for professional services, not for supplying the instrument, and who neither created nor could better detect a latent defect in the instrument, is not strictly liable for injuries caused solely by that latent defect.

🔒

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 Portland, Oregon, Dr. Elena Morris performed a routine skin biopsy on Noah Reed using a disposable scalpel from her office stock. The blade snapped because of an undiscoverable manufacturing flaw, injuring Noah, and Noah sues only on strict liability, expressly disclaiming negligence.

Is Dr. Morris most likely strictly liable?

Explanation. The majority rule denies strict liability where a professional is paid for skill and services, merely uses an instrument with a latent defect, did not create the defect, and did not place the product into the stream of commerce. The court expressly rejected extending strict liability to a dentist or physician in that service setting. Choice D is too broad because the opinion acknowledged strict liability can extend beyond sales, such as leasing, but not to this kind of professional-service use.