## Facts

- M. C. Skelton underwent ventral hernia repair surgery at Druid City Hospital in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
- During the operation, a suturing needle broke, and a portion allegedly remained in Skelton’s body, causing injury.
- The hospital furnished the needle used in the procedure and charged the patient in connection with the surgery and supplies.
- The Skeltons sued multiple defendants; as to the hospital, they alleged (among other theories) breach of implied warranties under Alabama’s U.C.C., claiming the needle was not fit for its intended purpose.
- Mrs. Skelton asserted a derivative claim based on her husband’s alleged injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether a public hospital that furnishes a surgical supply to a patient as part of treatment and charges for it can be treated as a U.C.C. Article 2 “seller” subject to implied warranties of merchantability and fitness.
2. Whether the hospital’s “seller” status and resulting implied-warranty exposure could be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the partial summary judgment entered for Druid City Hospital Board on the implied-warranty count.
- The court held that a hospital is not categorically excluded from “seller” status under Article 2 when it supplies goods in connection with patient care for consideration.
- The court concluded that whether the hospital was a “seller” of the suturing needle presented a genuine issue of material fact, making summary judgment improper.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the implied-warranty claim against the hospital.

## Legal Principles

- U.C.C. Article 2 applies to “transactions in goods,” and implied warranties may arise when an entity sells or contracts to sell goods in that transaction.
- In mixed goods-and-services arrangements, characterization of the transaction (and whether a party acted as a “seller”) may depend on the circumstances rather than a categorical rule.
- When the record permits an inference that a hospital supplied a product for which it received consideration, “seller” status and related implied-warranty liability generally present fact questions unsuitable for summary judgment.
- Summary judgment is improper where material facts remain disputed regarding the nature of the transaction and the applicability of implied warranties to the supplied product.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the Skeltons’ U.C.C. implied-warranty claim against the hospital, holding that a hospital may be treated as a seller of medical goods it furnishes for a charge and that the hospital’s seller status and warranty exposure typically require factual development rather than disposition on summary judgment.


Skelton v. Druid City Hosp. Bd., 459 So. 2d 818 (Ala. 1984)