Royer v. Catholic Medical Center

New Hampshire Supreme Court · Torts

TortsStrict Products LiabilityProducts vs. ServicesHealth Care Provider Liabilitystrict liabilitySection 402Aseller engaged in the businessprosthesis

Facts

Ira Royer underwent total knee replacement surgery at Catholic Medical Center in 1991, and a prosthetic knee provided by CMC was implanted as part of the procedure. In 1993, doctors determined that the prosthesis was defective, and Royer underwent a second surgery to remove it and insert another prosthesis. After initially suing the alleged manufacturers, the plaintiffs sued CMC, alleging strict liability for supplying a design-defective prosthesis and asserting a derivative loss of consortium claim. The pleadings also showed that Royer was billed for numerous hospital and medical services in addition to the prosthesis.

Issue

Whether a health care provider that supplies a defective prosthesis during the course of medical treatment is a "seller" or an entity "engaged in the business of selling" prosthetic devices for purposes of strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A. Put differently, the question was whether CMC's furnishing of the prosthesis was a product sale or merely incidental to the provision of professional medical services.

Rule

In New Hampshire, strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A applies only when the defendant is engaged in the business of selling the product at issue. Where a health care provider, in the course of rendering health care services, supplies a prosthetic device to be implanted into a patient, the provider is not engaged in the business of selling prostheses and is therefore not subject to strict products liability on that basis.

🔒

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.

At North River Surgical Center in Portland, Maine, Dr. Lena Ortiz implanted a shoulder prosthesis into Devon Pike during reconstructive surgery. The center separately itemized the prosthesis on Devon’s bill along with anesthesia, imaging, operating-room time, and post-op rehabilitation. Months later, Devon learned the prosthesis had a design defect and sued the center on a strict products liability theory.

Is Devon most likely to prevail on the strict products liability claim against the surgical center?

Explanation. Strict products liability applies only if the defendant is engaged in the business of selling the product. When a health care provider furnishes a prosthetic device in the course of rendering medical care, the essence of the relationship is treatment, not retail sale, and separate billing does not change that characterization. Therefore the surgical center would not be treated as engaged in the business of selling prostheses. (Derived from Royer v. Catholic Medical Center (n.d.).)