## Facts

- Frances J. Hector alleged she was injured by a defective cardiac pacemaker.
- The pacemaker was manufactured by American Technology, Inc. and implanted at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center by her physician, Dr. Eugene Kompaniez.
- Hector sued Cedars-Sinai for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty.
- The strict liability and warranty theories rested on the claim that the hospital supplied or sold the pacemaker as part of the transaction with the patient.

## Issues

1. Whether a hospital that provides and implants a medical device during treatment is a “seller” subject to strict products liability for a defect in the device.
2. Whether the hospital can be liable for breach of warranty for the device provided in connection with medical treatment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed partial summary judgment for Cedars-Sinai on the strict products liability and breach of warranty causes of action.
- The court concluded there was no triable issue of material fact and Cedars-Sinai was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those claims.
- The court held the hospital was not strictly liable because it was primarily a provider of medical services rather than a participant in the product distribution chain.
- The court also rejected the warranty claim because the hospital was not functioning as a seller of the pacemaker.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability applies to manufacturers and other commercial participants in the marketing and distribution chain that place products into the stream of commerce.
- Strict products liability generally does not apply to services; when a transaction is mixed, liability turns on whether the predominant purpose is the sale of goods or the provision of services.
- A hospital’s furnishing of medical devices and supplies in the course of treatment is ordinarily incidental to its primary function of providing medical care, making it outside the class of “sellers” for strict liability purposes.
- Warranty liability presupposes a sale of goods; when the hospital’s role is the provision of medical services rather than a commercial sale, warranty theories do not attach.
- Policy considerations supporting the service characterization include the hospital’s limited ability to test complex devices it does not market or select and concerns about increased health-care costs from expanded strict liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that a hospital that provides facilities and personnel to implant a pacemaker as part of medical treatment is not a seller of the device; therefore, it is not subject to strict products liability or breach of warranty for an alleged defect in the pacemaker.


Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr., 180 Cal. App. 3d 493 (Ct. App. 1986)