## Facts

- Jeremy Rogers was born with severe Type B hemophilia and required regular infusions of factor IX clotting concentrate.
- Factor IX concentrate was derived from human plasma; the defendants processed and supplied the concentrate as for-profit pharmaceutical companies.
- Before April 1985, clotting concentrates were not testable for HIV; testing became available in April 1985.
- Jeremy used factor IX concentrate since birth, tested HIV-positive in 1985, and was diagnosed with AIDS in 1988.
- Kimberly Rogers sued the defendants in federal court, alleging Jeremy contracted HIV from contaminated factor IX concentrate made from plasma obtained from compensated donors.
- The federal district court dismissed the strict-liability claims on partial summary judgment and certified to the Washington Supreme Court whether strict liability applies under Washington law in these circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington’s blood shield statute, RCW 70.54.120, governs the claim and either imposes or precludes strict liability for entities that compensate donors.
2. If the statute does not control, whether Washington common law permits strict products liability against for-profit companies that process and supply HIV-contaminated blood products derived from compensated donors.

## Decision

- The court answered the certified question in the negative: strict products liability does not apply to the processing and supplying of HIV-contaminated blood products in Washington, even when derived from compensated donors.
- RCW 70.54.120 did not create strict liability for entities outside its statutory protection and did not control the case by negative implication.
- Under Washington common law, blood and blood products (including factor concentrates) are treated as “unavoidably unsafe” products under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment k, making negligence—not strict liability—the applicable framework.
- The ruling foreclosed strict-liability theories but left negligence claims to proceed in the federal action.

## Legal Principles

- A statute limiting liability for certain blood-related activities is not read to impose strict liability on entities outside its express scope absent clear legislative intent.
- Blood and blood products, including clotting factor concentrates, are governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment k as “unavoidably unsafe” products when properly prepared and accompanied by adequate warnings.
- For comment k products, strict products liability is generally unavailable; liability, if any, turns on negligence-based standards such as reasonable care in preparation, testing, and warnings.
- Public policy favoring the continued availability of life-sustaining blood products supports limiting strict-liability exposure in this category.

## Conclusion

Washington law does not allow strict products liability for injuries allegedly caused by HIV-contaminated blood products, including factor IX concentrates supplied by for-profit companies using compensated donors; plaintiffs must rely on negligence theories instead.


Rogers v. Miles Lab'ys, Inc., 802 P.2d 1346 (Wash. 1991)