Hutchins v. Blood Services of Montana

No. 12239

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F

CHARLES A. HUTCHINS,

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

BLOOD SERVICES O M N A A a n Arizona
F OTN,
corporation, and BILLINGS DEACONESS
HOSPITAL, a Montana corporation,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellants :

Moulton, Bellingham, Lango and Mather, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana.
W. H . Bellingham argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana.
L e w i s and Roca , Phoenix, Arizona.
Douglas L. I r i s h argued, Phoenix, Arizona.

For Respondent:

S c o t t , S c o t t and Baugh, B i l l i n g s , Montana.
J e f f r e y 3. S c o t t argued, Omaha, Nebraska.
G. Todd Baugh appeared, B i l l i n g s , Montana.

Submitted: January 22, 1973

Decided : FEB I 4 1973
F i l e d :FEB 14 19-73
X r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment based on a j u r y v e r d i c t
r e t u r n e d October 2 2 , 1971, i n Yellowstone County, i n f a v o r of
p l a i n t i f f C h a r l e s A . Hutchins and a g a i n s t defendant Blood S e r v i c e s
of Montana. Hutchins claimed Blood S e r v i c e s n e g l i g e n t l y caused
him t o c o n t a c t serum h e p a t i t i s , The t r i a l c o u r t denied d e f e n d a n t ' s

motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a t t h e c l o s e of p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e and
a g a i n a t t h e c l o s e of a l l t h e evidence. The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o
denied d e f e n d a n t ' s combined motion f o r judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g
t h e v e r d i c t and f o r new t r i a l . This a p p e a l i s from t h e judgment
a s w e l l a s t h e d e n i a l of motions f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , f o r
judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t , a n d f o r a new t r i a l .
P l a i n t i f f C h a r l e s A , Hutchins, 56 y e a r s of a g e , underwent
abdominal s u r g e r y i n September 1966. During t h e c o u r s e of t h a t
s u r g e r y he r e c e i v e d two u n i t s of whole blood which was s u p p l i e d
by Blood S e r v i c e s of Montana.
Defendant i s an Arizona c o r p o r a t i o n a u t h o r i z e d t o do
b u s i n e s s i n t h e s t a t e of Montana under t h e name Blood S e r v i c e s
of fjontana. Blood S e r v i c e s i s a n o n p r o f i t medically-sponsored
community blood banking system which m a i n t a i n s 27 f a c i l i t i e s
s e r v i n g about 850 h o s p i t a l s i n 18 s t a t e s . It p r o v i d e s n e a r l y
275,000 u n i t s of blood f o r t r a n s f u s i o n s a n n u a l l y .
I n Montana, a s e l s e w h e r e , Blood S e r v i c e s u t i l i z e s a
v a r i e t y of methods t o persuade people t o become blood d o n o r s ,
i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n and m a i n t a i n a c o n s t a n t supply of blood t o
f u l f i l l i t s commitments t o t h e communities i t s e r v e s . It i n v i t e s
f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s of p a t i e n t s who have r e c e i v e d t r a n s f u s i o n s
t o r e p l a c e blood used and t h e r e b y o b t a i n a c r e d i t on t h e p a t i e n t ' s
hospital b i l l . Blood S e r v i c e s w i l l a r r a n g e f o r t h e i s s u a n c e of an
i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y t o a blood donor t o i n s u r e him and h i s f a m i l y
a g a i n s t t h e i r p o t e n t i a l blood needs f o r one y e a r i n exchange f o r
a s i n g l e donation. I t w i l l a l s o make a d o n a t i o n i n t h e d o n o r ' s

name t o a c h a r i t y of t h e d o n o r ' s c h o i c e , i f t h e donor s o wishes.
When an i n d i v i d u a l p r e s e n t s h i m s e l f a s a p r o s p e c t i v e donor
a t Blood S e r v i c e s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made, depending on t h e needs
of the community, if Blood Services will accept the service of
such volunteer, if he is acceptable as a donor. In order to
assure itself of a supply of volunteers, Blood Services compen-
sates them for their availability and willingness to serve either
by the insurance plan, offered to all donors, or a charitable
donation, or a direct payment in the amount of $5.
Blood Services' procedures for gathering, testing, pro-
cessing and distributing blood are established in three sets of
regulations: (1) Federal regulations issued by the United States
Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Division
of Biologic Standards, by which it is regularly inspected; (2)
the accreditation standards of the American Association of Blood
Banks, by which it is accredited and regularly inspected; and (3)
its own internal Medical-Technical Procedures Manual, prepared
by Dr. John B. Alsever, Blood Services' Vice-President for Medical
Affairs, which manual meets or exceeds all requirements of the
Public Health Service and the American Association of Blood Banks.
Here, there was no contention that any regulation or procedure
was violated by Blood Services.
On September 22, 1966, donor Sharon Holm, a 19 year old
resident of Butte, felt and appeared to be in good health, She
had never previously donated blood. At Blood Servicesf Butte
facility where she donated, Sharon and her blood were screened,
tested and processed by Blood Servicesf personnel in accordance
with all of its standard testing and screening procedures. Sharon
gave no history or indication from which it might be inferred she
could be a hepatitis carrier. She was paid $5 by Blood Services
for her donation of blood. Sharon ~olm'sblood was transfused
to plaintiff Hutchins on September 29, 1966, while he was under-
going abdominal surgery. About three weeks after Hutchins re-
ceived the blood, Sharon Holm, having been ill for a few days,
was diagnosed as having hepatitis. ~utchins'doctors in Billings
were immediately notified but it was too late and Hutchins also
became ill with hepatitis.
 Blood S e r v i c e s r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on appeal. We will

d e a l p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n of whether p l a i n t i f f by s u f f i c i e n t
evidence a d e q u a t e l y e s t a b l i s h e d n e g l i g e n c e , s o a s t o c r e a t e a
jury question.
P l a i n t i f f attempted t o prove Blood S e r v i c e s was n e g l i g e n t
on accepted b ood
i n t h a t i t d i d n o t u s e a l a b o r a t o r y t e s t known a s t h e SGQT t e s t /
and i n t h e h a n d l i n g of t h e p a i d donor, s i n c e p a i d donors a l l e g e d l y
have a much h i g h e r r a t e of h e p a t i t i s than v o l u n t e e r donors. We
have reviewed t h e evidence i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o the
p l a i n t i f f and f i n d p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h any c a s e of n e g l i -
gence a g a i n s t Blood S e r v i c e s .
P l a i n t i f f Hutchins a s s e r t e d t h a t Blood S e r v i c e s by i t s
n e g l i g e n c e caused him t o c o n t a c t serum h e p a t i t i s . He p r o f f e r e d
two a c t s of n e g l i g e n c e on Blood S e r v i c e s ' p a r t . I n a negligence
a c t i o n i t i s encumbent upon t h e p l a i n t i f f t o prove, among o t h e r
elements, a duty owing from defendant t o p l a i n t i f f and a breach
of t h a t duty. See: P i c k e t t v. Kyger, 151 Mont. 8 7 , 439 P,2d 57.
W f i r s t c o n s i d e r t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t Blood S e r v i c e s d i d
e
n o t use the S O test.
GT SGOT i s a l a b o r a t o r y t e s t developed and
used f o r many y e a r s i n following t h e c l i n i c a l c o u r s e of persons
who a r e known t o b e ill. I n g e n e r a l , i t measures t h e l e v e l of
a c e r t a i n enzyme i n t h e blood. C e l l s damaged by trauma o r d i s e a s e
r e l e a s e t h i s enzyme i n t h e blood. Hence, a n i n c r e a s e d SGOT l e v e l
may i n d i c a t e t h e r e a r e damaged o r d i s e a s e d c e l l s somewhere i n t h e

body,
I t was Blood S e r v i c e s ' f a i l u r e t o u s e t h e SGQT t e s t t h a t
was charged a s n e g l i g e n c e . I n 1966, when t h e i n c i d e n t i n t h i s c a s e
o c c u r r e d , n o t a s i n g l e blood bank i n t h e n a t i o n had e v e r used t h e
t e s t t o s c r e e n blood donors, I n o t h e r words, t h e s t a n d a r d of c a r e
e s t a b l i s h e d throughout t h e n a t i o n was n o t t o u s e t h e SGOT t e s t .
This same s t a n d a r d of c a r e was e s t a b l i s h e d f o r B u t t e and B i l l i n g s ,
Montana.
 P l a i n t i f f produced one w i t n e s s , D r . J . G a r r o t t A l l e n , a
p r o f e s s o r of surgery a t S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y and a p r a c t i c i n g
surgeon. D r . Allen i s a recognized e x p e r t i n t h e f i e l d of what
w e w i l l g e n e r a l l y c a l l blood. Over Blood S e r v i c e s ' o b j e c t i o n ,
D r . A l l e n was allowed t o e x p r e s s h i s opinion t h a t i f t h e SGOT
t e s t had been given t o Sharon Holm a t t h e time of t h e t a k i n g of
h e r blood, i t "probably" would have given a p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n .
However, D r , Allen t e s t i f i e d t h a t no blood bank i n t h e United
S t a t e s , i n c l u d i n g h i s own h o s p i t a l ' s blood bank i n C a l i f o r n i a ,
had e v e r used t h e SGOT t e s t t o s c r e e n donors.
D r . A l l e n then, a s w e l l a s a l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s , e s t a b l i s h e d
a s t a n d a r d of c a r e a s r e g a r d s t h e SGOT t e s t , a s a s t a n d a r d of
n o t u s i n g t h e SGOT t e s t . Neither D r . A l l e n n o r any o t h e r w i t n e s s
expressed t h e opinion: ( a ) t h a t a blood b a n k ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o
use t h e SGOT t e s t was a d e v i a t i o n from, o r c o n t r a r y t o , t h e ap-
proved custom o r p r a c t i c e i n any o t h e r blood bank, o r (b) t h a t
t h e conclusion of t h e e n t i r e blood banking community n o t t o perform
t h i s t e s t d e v i a t e d from what anyone would c o n s i d e r r e a s o n a b l e o r
prudent p r a c t i c e . D r . A l l e n d i d say h e p e r s o n a l l y would l i k e i t
done on blood h e r e c e i v e s . But, one p e r s o n ' s p r e f e r e n c e does n o t
e s t a b l i s h a s t a n d a r d of c a r e .
This was t h e only evidence o f f e r e d by p l a i n t i f f . However,
i n o r d e r t o prove a c a s e of a c t i o n a b l e n e g l i g e n c e , p l a i n t i f f
must do more t h a n have an e x p e r t w i t n e s s t e s t i f y t h a t h e would
l i k e t o have t h e t e s t used. P l a i n t i f f had t o e s t a b l i s h , by com-
p e t e n t medical evidence, e i t h e r t h a t Blood S e r v i c e s d i d something
blood bankers of o r d i n a r y c a r e , s k i l l and d i l i g e n c e would n o t have
done under s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s , o r i t omitted t o do something they
would have done under s i m i l a r circumstances. Here, i t was
e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t no one i n t h e blood banking b u s i n e s s used t h e
SGOT t e s t t o s c r e e n blood donors. N e i t h e r t h e government's reg-
ulatifig agency, t h e blood bankers' a c c r e d i t i n g a s s o c i a t i o n , t h e
American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n , nor anyone e l s e i n a u t h o r i t y had

e v e r asked blood bankers t o u s e t h e S O t e s t i n s c r e e n i n g donors.
G T

I t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Blood S e r v i c e s ' d e c i s i o n was
n o t t o use t h e S O t e s t .
G T But t h e testimony of a p r o f e s s o r a t a

medical s c h o o l t h a t he would l i k e t o have t h e t e s t done on t h e
blood h e u s e s , does n o t e s t a b l i s h a c a s e of n e g l i g e n c e . This

Court s t a t e d i n Mang v . E l i a s s o n , 153 Mont. 431, 435, 458 P.2d

777:
"An a d d i t i o n a l t e s t of a c t i o n a b l e n e g l i g e n c e
i s n o t what might have prevented a p a r t i c u l a r
a c c i d e n t , b u t what r e a s o n a b l y prudent men would
have done i n t h e d i s c h a r g e of t h e i r d u t i e s under
t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s t h e y e x i s t e d a t t h e time
o f t h e a c c i d e n t , Milasevich v . Fox Western Montana
T h e a t r e Corp., 118 Mont, 265, 272, 165 P.2d 195."
Here t h e n , we must look t o what a c t u a l l y happened and

what a r e a s o n a b l y prudent blood bank would have done i n t h e same
situation, Using t h a t t e s t , and c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

a s t h e y were i n 1966, i t was n o t n e g l i g e n c e f o r Blood S e r v i c e s

n o t t o use t h e S O t e s t ,
G T it acted a s a reasonably prudent
blood bank.

The u n c o n t r a d i c t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s a t t h e time were:

( a ) no blook bank i n t h e United S t a t e s was u s i n g t h e S O t e s t
G T
a s a r o u t i n e s c r e e n i n g t e s t ; (b) n e i t h e r f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s nor
t h e a c c r e d i t i n g s t a n d a r d s of t h e American A s s o c i a t i o n of Blood
Banks r e q u i r e d o r had e v e r r e q u i r e d t h e u s e of t h e S O t e s t on
G T

p r o s p e c t i v e donors; ( c ) n e i t h e r t h e P u b l i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e , t h e
American A s s o c i a t i o n of Blood Banks of t h e American Medical

A s s o c i a t i o n Committee on T r a n s p l a n t a t i o n and T r a n s f u s i o n had e v e r

recommended t h e u s e of S O t e s t i n g ; and (d) a l t h o u g h some w r i t e r s
G T
had suggested i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e u s e f u l n e s s of SGOT f o r blood
donors, t h o s e F J ~ Owere recognized a s a u t h o r i t i e s i n blood banking
had concluded i t was n o t a u s e f u l o r meaningful t e s t f o r purposes
o f s c r e e n i n g blood donors. N w i t n e s s , n o t even D r . A l l e n , ex-
o

p r e s s e d t h e o p i n i o n t h a t Blood S e r v i c e s ' d e c i s i o n f a i l e d t o comply

w i t h any s t a n d a r d of p r a c t i c e o r recognized degree of c a r e anywhere
o t h e r than i n D r . A l l e n ' s p r i v a t e preferences. T h i s Court s a i d

"'Nor does t h e f a c t t h a t o t h e r p h y s i c i a n s might
have adopted o t h e r methods n e c e s s a r i l y r e n d e r
t h e a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n l i a b l e , n o r show n e g l i g e n c e
o r want of s k i l l o r c a r e . I f t h e method adopted
-
I -.
1
+ h a s s u b s t a n t i a l medical s u p p o r t , i t i s s u f -
:
4h

ficient. : ' ** And, where t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e
of o p i n i o n among p r a c t i c a l and s k i l l f u l surgeons
a s t o t h e p r a c t i c e t o be pursued i n c e r t a i n c a s e s ,
a p h y s i c i a n may e x e r c i s e h i s own b e s t judgment,
employing t h e methods h i s e x p e r i e n c e may have
shown t o be b e s t , and mere e r r o r of judgment w i l l
n o t make him l i a b l e i n damages, i n t h e absence of
a showing of want of c a r e and s k i l l . "'
That s t a n d a r d i s c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . There was no
evidence i n t r o d u c e d t o show t h a t Blood S e r v i c e s f a i l e d t o u s e
c a r e and s k i l l , and i t was e s t a b l i s h e d i t s p r a c t i c e was t h e same
a s a l l o t h e r blood banks. The p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e s blood
banks t o be v i g i l a n t b u t t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n would n o t j u s t i f y t h e
lowering the standard proof i n c a s e s of t h i s k i n d , f o r i n
doing s o t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t would be ill s e r v e d . I f t h o s e who
supply t h e v e r y f l u i d of l i f e were r e q u i r e d , w i t h o u t t h e s l i g h t e s t
evidence of d e v i a t i o n from approved medical p r a c t i c e , i p s 0 f a c t o
t o pay damages any time a person whose l i f e t h e y s a v e s u f f e r s
an untoward r e s u l t , such a c h a r i t a b l e n o n p r o f i t e n t e r p r i s e would
be hazardous and s e l f - d e f e a t i n g . W do n o t f i n d from t h e evidence
e
t h a t Blood S e r v i c e s was n e g l i g e n t i n n o t u s i n g t h e S O t e s t .
G T
The second a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n t a c t was t h a t s i n c e Blood
S e r v i c e s was u s i n g p a i d d o n o r s , i t was n e g l i g e n t in n o t t a k i n g
t h e n e c e s s a r y s t e p s t o make s u r e t h e blood from i t s p a i d donors
was n o t i n f e c t e d .
P l a i n t i f f ' s t h e o r y wa,s t h a t i n a c c e p t i n g blood from Sharon
Holm, a p a i d donor, t h e r i s k she would b e c a r r y i n g h e p a t i t i s was
e l e v e n times h i g h e r than a v o l u n t e e r donor. Since t h i s i s a
h i g h e r r i s k of h e p a t i t i s , p l a i n t i f f m a i n t a i n s Blood S e r v i c e s should
have taken n e c e s s a r y s t e p s t o determine i f t h e blood was i n f e c t e d .
T h i s t h e o r y i s based on s t u d i e s of t h e t y p e s of people
who exchange blood f o r money. It was D r . A l l e n who had made p a r t
of t h e s t u d i e s and made t h e o b s e r v a t i o n d u r i n g t r i a l t h a t t h e
r i s k when d e a l i n g w i t h p a i d donors was much h i g h e r t h a n when
dealing with volunteers. D r . A l l e n gave a two-fold b a s i s upon

which h i s o p i n i o n was based: (a) h i s own s t u d i e s a t t h e I l l i n o i s
S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y , which showed p r i s o n e r s i n s t a t e p e n i t e n t i a r i e s
c a r r y a h i g h h e p a t i t i s r i s k , and (b) s t u d i e s of o t h e r s which show
t h a t drug a d d i c t s , d e r e l i c t s and skid-row bums a l l c a r r y a h i g h
r i s k of h e p a t i t i s .
Even a c c e p t i n g e v e r y t h i n g p l a i n t i f f o f f e r s a s t r u e , t h a t
s t i l l does n o t show Blood S e r v i c e s was n e g l i g e n t when d e a l i n g
w i t h Sharon Holm. The u n c o n t r o v e r t e d e v i d e n c e was t h a t Sharon
d i d n o t f a l l i n t o t h e c a t e g o r y of a dangerous donor such a s
p r i s o n i n m a t e s , bums, o r a d d i c t s ; she d i d n o t l i v e i n a slum o r
skid-row d i s t r i c t ; Blood S e r v i c e s does n o t a c c e p t , p a i d o r n o t ,
t h e t y p e of donor i n t h e c a t e g o r y D r . A l l e n and o t h e r s found t o
be dangerous; and Blood S e r v i c e s f a c i l i t i e s were n o t l o c a t e d i n
a slum o r skid-row d i s t r i c t . The evidence o f D r . A l l e n on t h e r i s k
o f u s i n g p a i d donors was n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n of
Sharon Holm. There was no evidence t o b r i n g Sharon Holm w i t h i n
t h e c i r c l e of t h o s e personsvhoseblood i s more l i k e l y t o c o n t a i n
h e p a t i t i s t h a n blood of t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . It may be t h a t
p r i s o n e r s , bums, and a d d i c t s who s e l l t h e i r blood a r e h i g h r i s k
d o n o r s , b u t i t does n o t f o l l o w t h a t everyone who s e l l s h i s blood
i s a h i g h r i s k donor. I t i s n o t n e g l i g e n c e t o o f f e r t o buy b l o o d ,

when a blood bank f i n d s t h a t i s t h e o n l y way i t can meet i t s
obligations.
Since t h e only two a c t s of n e g l i g e n c e r e l i e d upon by
p l a i n t i f f f W t o e s t a b l i s h n e g l i g e n c e , t h e c a s e was improperly
a

submitted t o t h e j u r y .
T h e r e f o r e , we o r d e r t h e judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e dismissed.

~ s s d i a t e ustice
J
..............................
Associate J u s t i c e s .

Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell took no p a r t i n t h i s Opinion.

M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g
in part:

I concur w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y on i s s u e one, t h a t t h e c a s e
should be r e v e r s e d , b u t I would r e t u r n t h e c a s e f o r a new t r i a l .

I do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y on i s s u e two a s t o p a i d
blood donors. The f a c t s , a s I understand them, c o n c e r n i n g Sharon

Holm would have made h e r a h i g h r i s k donor. These f a c t s brought

o u t d u r i n g t r i a l need n o t be s t a t e d , b u t t h e y d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t
i f defendant had made any i n q u i r i e s s h e might n o t have been a l -

lowed t o s e l l h e r blood.

Numerous c a s e s have a r i s e n i n r e c e n t y e a r s where e i t h e r
h o s p i t a l s have been sued o r a p r i v a t e blood bank, a s h e r e , f o r

i m p e r f e c t blood. Hoffman v . M i s e r i c o r d i a H o s p i t a l of P h i l a d e l p h i a ,
439 Pa. 501, 267 A.2d 8 6 7 , and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Some of

t h e s e c a s e s speak of an a c t i o n i n implied w a r r a n t y ex c o n t r a c t u e ,
and h o l d such an a c t i o n cannot l i e because t h e f u r n i s h i n g of blood
i s not a sale.
One c o u r t h e l d t h a t a d i s t i n c t i o n might p o s s i b l y be drawn
between a h o s p i t a l t h a t furnished medical s e r v i c e s , and a blood

bank which c o l l e c t e d t h e blood and s u p p l i e d i t t o t h e h o s p i t a l .

Koenig v . Milwaukee Blood C e n t e r , I n c . , 23 Wis.2d 324, 1 2 7 N.W.2d 50.
 I b e l i e v e t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between a s u i t a g a i n s t
a blood bank a s opposed t o a h o s p i t a l . 103 U.Pa,L.R.ev. 833;
Gottsdanker v . C u t t e r L a b o r a t o r i e s , 182 CalaApp,2d 602, 6 Cal.
R p t r . 320, 79 ALR2d 290.
I t h i n k a s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c p o l i c y t h a t we should
I1
d e p a r t from t h e s a l e v , s e r v i c e " c a t e g o r y and examine t h e i s s u e
h e r e a s one p r i m a r i l y i n v o l v i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of implied w a r r a n t y .
Here, e x p r e s s i o n s of sound p o l i c y p r e f e r e n c e s a r e more i n harmony
w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e , which I f e e l should c o n t r o l . See P r o s s e r ,
S t r i c t L i a b i l i t y t o t h e Consumer, 69 Yale Law J o u r n a l 1099, 1124,
A h o s p i t a l s u p p l i n g whole blood t o a p a t i e n t may b e merely p e r -

forming s e r v i c e i n c i d e n t t o t h e o v e r a l l medical a t t e n t i o n b e i n g
f u r n i s h e d , such t h e o r y of " s e r v i c e " should n o t be extended t o
t h e p r i v a t e blood bank which c o l l e c t s and d i s t r i b u t e s t h e blood.
I would adopt t h e implied w a r r a n t y t h e o r y a s i t a p p l i e s

t o the case before us.

Associate J u s t i c e

J