## Facts

- Frances Magrine received dental treatment from Vincent Krasnica, a dentist, who administered a local anesthetic by hypodermic needle in the left temporomandibular space.
- The needle extended about 1 5/8 inches beyond the syringe, was assembled by the dentist shortly before use, and had been used multiple times in prior treatments as part of his ordinary practice.
- During the injection, the needle separated at the hub, leaving the full needle embedded in the patient’s jaw.
- The dentist did not know the cause of the break and believed it was attributable to a defect in the needle; the alleged defect was latent.
- The dentist did not reliably identify the needle’s source or manufacturer.
- Plaintiffs Frances Magrine and Alfred Magrine sued the dentist solely on strict liability, breach of warranty, and breach of contract theories; they expressly did not assert negligence.
- The case was submitted on stipulated facts in the Law Division; judgment was entered for the defendant, and the Appellate Division later affirmed on the trial court’s opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether strict products liability applies to a dentist who uses (but does not manufacture or sell) a medical instrument during the rendering of professional services when a latent defect causes injury.
2. Whether implied warranty or contract principles impose liability on a dentist for latent defects in instruments used incidentally to professional treatment, absent negligence.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the defendant dentist.
- Strict products liability did not extend to a dentist who merely used a defective needle while providing professional services.
- Warranty and contract theories failed because the transaction was predominantly for services rather than a sale of goods, and the court declined to impose a seller-like implied warranty on the professional for latent defects.
- The absence of any negligence claim or negligence-based factual theory foreclosed malpractice-based recovery.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability generally targets manufacturers and commercial sellers/distributors placing products into the stream of commerce; it is not automatically imposed on professionals who are non-seller users of products while rendering services.
- When the essence of a transaction is professional services, the use or provision of materials and instruments is typically incidental and does not convert the professional into a “seller” for strict liability or sales-based implied warranty purposes.
- Absent negligence, courts will not treat a professional’s obligation to exercise reasonable care and skill as a contractual guarantee or implied warranty that all instruments used will be free from latent defects.

## Conclusion

The court refused to expand strict products liability and implied warranty/contract doctrines to hold a dentist liable for injuries caused by a latent defect in a hypodermic needle used incidentally in dental treatment, where the patient asserted no negligence theory and the relationship was characterized as primarily one for professional services rather than a sale of goods.


Magrine v. Krasnica, 227 A.2d 539 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1967)