I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CT - 0 1 2 2 8 - S CT R IC H A R D (R IC

K E Y ) PA L ER M O A N

D S H EL IA P A L ER MO
v. L I FEL I NK FO UNDA T

ION, I NC . d / b / a L I FEL I NK T I S S UE BA NK ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 20/ 2011 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J EF F W EI LL , S R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: DA VI D N EI L M c CA RTY F RANK G
. VOLLOR ALL EN AUST I N VO LL OR AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : CH RI S T Y VI NS ON MALAT E S T A J OH N A LFRED W AI TS M AR K C
. CA RL S ON NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 20/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. KI NG , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. R ich a rd P a ler m o a lleg e d th a t h e w a s in ju re d b y in fe c ted tissu e su rg ica lly p lac e d in to h is k n e e . H e s u e d L if

e L in k F o u n d a tio n , In c ., u n d e r, in tera lia , the M iss iss ip p i P ro d u c ts L i abi l i ty A ct( “M PL A ”) , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 1- 63. T he tr i al courtan d C ou rtof A p p e a ls b o th fo u n d th a t M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 4 1 -4 1 -1 , w h ich d e fin e s th e p ro c u re m e n t,

### 2

pr oces s i ng, s t or age, di s tr i but i on, and us e of hum an t i s s ue as a “se r vi ce, ” exe m pt ed Li f eLi nk f r o m l i a b i l i ty u n d e rth e M P LA. W h i l e we c l a r i f y th e a n a l y s i s s u rr o u n d i n g th i s i s s u e , we ult i m at el y fi nd no err or, and thu s af fi rm the tr i al cou rtand the C ou rtof A pp eal s. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. T he r eci t at i on of f act s i s t aken l ar gel y f

r om the C our tof

A ppeal s opi ni on. O n M ar ch 2, 2005, R i char d i nj ur ed hi s r i ghtknee w hi l e w or ki ng as an empl oyee f

orL et ourneau Technol ogi es I nc. R i char d s oughttr eatm entf r om D r . G ene Bar r ett , an orthopedi c s ur geon atM i s s i s s i ppi B apt i s tM edi cal C ent er (M B M C ). D r. B a rre tt re c o m m e n d e d su rg e ry d e sc rib e d as “a n ter io r c ru c iate lig a m e n t co n s tru c tio n a n d m e d ic a l m e n is c u s re p a ira n d th e u s e o f a n a llo g ra ft .” O n M ar ch 22, 2005, L i f eLi nk, a non- pr of

i tt i s s ue bank, f

i l l ed an or der pl ace d by N u[ T ] ech M edi cal Inc. (“N uT ech” ) f ora t i bi al i s t endon- ant er i or all o g raft. P ri o r t o L if

eL ink ’s shipm en t o f th e all o g raft, itw as tested an d there w er e no f

i ndi ngs of seps i s orm edi cal i nf ect i on i n the medi cal hi s t ory or aut ops y of

the al l og raf

tdonor
. L i f

eLi nk s hi pped the al l ogr af tt o N u[ T ] ech, w her e i tr emai ned f

ors i x days
. O n M ar ch 28, 2005, N u[T] ech shi pped the al l ogr af tt o M edi cal A r t s E as tPhysi ci an Sur gery C ent eri n J acks on, M i s s i s s i ppi
. D r . B arr ettper f or m ed R i char d’ s s ur gery w i t h t he al l ogr af ton A pr i l 5 , 2 00 5. A f

t erthe s ur gery, R i char d’ s knee be gan t o exhi bi ts i gns of i nf ect i on. D r . Bar r ettr emoved t he al l ogr af tf r om R i char d’ s knee on M ay 11, 2005, an d t he i nf

ect i on s ubs i ded. A f

t erthe al l ogr af

tw as r emoved f

r om R icha rd’s k n ee on M ay 11 , 20 0 5 , furth er t esti n g w as d o n e o n the a ll o g raft. It s h o w e d th a t n o b a c te ri a w a s p re s e n t. T he Pal erm os f

i l ed thei rf

i r s tcom pl ai nti n t hi s act i on on M ar ch 7, 2007, agai ns tnum er ous def

endant s , i ncl udi ng M B M C , D r . B arr ett , N uT ech, and L i feLink. A ft er the dis m i ssal o f several defend ants , the P al erm os fi l ed a F i rs t A m ended a nd Suppl ement al C om pl ai ntagai ns tL i f eLi nk on M ar ch 16, 2010.

. . . L i f e L i n k mo v e d f

o rs u mm a ry j u d g me n to n Au g u s t9 , 2 0 1 1
. . . . On D ece m ber20, 2011, the tr i al courtgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof L if eL ink
. In it s o p inion an d o rde r, the c o u rtd eterm ined that M issi ssipp i’ s pu bli c health st atute, M i ssi ssi pp i C o d e S ect i on 41 -41-1 ( R ev. 20 13 ), al so appl i ed t o hum an t i s s ue and t her ef or e pr ohi bi t ed t he Pal erm os ’ cl ai m s br ought underthe M i s s i s s i ppi Pr oduct s L i abi l i ty A ctas codi f i ed i n M i s s i s s i pp i C ode

### 3

A n n o tate d [S ]ec tio n 1 1 -1 -6 3 (R e v . 2 0 1 2 ) - s trict p ro d u c ts liab ili ty , p ro d u c ts liab ili ty n e g lig e n c e , an d b re a c h o f w a rra n ty . T h e c o u rt a lso sta ted th a t, beca us e the Pal erm os f ai l ed t o pr ove the el ement s of br eac h of

dut y or caus at i on, they coul d notpr ove a c as e of s i m pl e negl i gence . O n a pp e a l [ t o the Courto f Appe a l s ] , the Pa l e r mos a r gu e [ d] t he f ol l ow i ng i s s ues : ( 1) the tr i al j udge comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err ori n gr ant i ng L ife L in k ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, (2 ) th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d iscreti o n in d en y ing the P alerm o s’ su p p lem en tary e x p ert de sign ati o n o f D r. M ar i on K ai ner , and ( 3) the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n den yi ng the P alerm o s’ req u e st f

o r a c o u rtrep o rt er to tran scribe the h ea ri n g o n su m m ary ju d g m e n t. . . . P alerm o v. L i

f eLink Foundati on, I

nc. , 2 0 1 2 -C A -01 2 2 8 -C O A , 2 0 1 4 W L 11 4 5 3 1 , at ** 1 -2 (M is s . C t. A p p . J a n . 1 4 , 2 0 1 4 ). ¶3. T he C our tof

A ppeal s af

f i r m ed the tr i al court . I tnot ed thatthe ques t i on of w hether “s ect i on 4 1- 41
- 1 [ i s ] a n e xc e pt i on t o s e c t i on 1 1- 1- 63 ” o rwhethe r“ s e c t i on 1 1- 1- 63 [ i s ] an
e x c e p tio n to s e c tio n 4 1 -4 1 -1 ” w a s a m a tte r o f fi rs t im p re s s io n . I d. a t*3. I tul t i m at el y f

ound th a t “[s ]tric t-p ro d u c ts-lia b ili ty pr ot ect i on i s notpr ovi ded f orthe di s tr i but i on of

human t i s s ue f orm edi cal pr ocedur es underthe publ i c pol i cy of M i s s i s s i ppi under l yi ng s ect i on 41-41-1,
as w el l a s the s tr ong na t i onw i de publ i c pol i cy es t abl i s hed aga i ns ts uch l i abi l i ty i n s t atut es and
cas e l aw i n the overw hel m i ng maj or i ty of others t at es . ” I

d. at*4. I tal s o found that“human tissu e p ro v id e d to o th e rs in m e d ica l p ro c e d u re s is n o t a ‘ p ro d u c t’ su b jec t to p ro d u c ts-lia b ili ty l aw , and the d i stri bu t i on of hum an ti ssue, i ncludi ng reas on able paym ents f or r el at ed servi ces, does notcon st i tute a ‘ s al e’ f orpurpos es of

s tr i ctl i abi l i ty. ” I

d. T he C ou rtof A pp eal s al so h e ld th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t err in g ra n tin g L ife L in k ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in
re g a rd to th e P a ler m o s’ s im p le n e g lig e n c e c laim , tha t th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its dis cret i on i n ex cl ud i ng on e of the P al m eros’ exp erts, and that the d enial of the P al erm os’

### 4

m o tio n fo r a c o u rt re p o rt e r w a s h a rm le s s e rr o r. I d. at**4- 6. ¶4. T he Pal erm os f

i l ed a pet i t i on f

or w r i t of cert i orar i , as w el l as a s uppl ement al br i ef ther et o, w i th thi s C our t . T hey ar gued t hatt he C our tof A ppeal s err ed by f i ndi ng thatSect i on 41- 41- 1 exce pt ed Li f

eLi nk f r om the purvi ew of

the M PL A , thatw hetherthe al l og raf tw as
c o n tam in a ted w ith b a c ter ia is a q u e stio n o f m a ter ia l fa c t th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
m i sapprehen ded , and that the d enial of a cou rtreport er w as a vi olat i on of due p rocess . B eca us e Sect i on 41-41- 1 has neve rbeen i nt erpr et ed by thi s C our t , and bec aus e the i s s ue of
w hetherhum an t i s s ue i s s ubj ectt o pr oduct s l i abi l i ty l aw i s a “f undament al i s s ue[ ] of

br oad p u b lic im p o rt a n c e re q u irin g d e ter m in a tio n b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt,” w e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri. M
. R
. A
. P. 17( a) ( 3) ( i i )
. W e l i m i tour r evi ew t o t he i s s ue of w hethert he M PL A , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11-1- 63, appl i es t o hum an t i s s ue i n t hi s ci r cumst ance , espe ci al l y i n l i ghtof the
ru le p ro n o u n c e d b y M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 4 1 -4 1 -1
. See G u ice v. S ta te , 952 So. 2d 129, 133 ( M i s s . 2007) ( Supr eme C our t“ unques t i onabl y” has the author i ty t o l i m i tthe i s s ues on
rev iew ). A N A L Y S IS ¶ 5
. W e r e v ie w a t r ia l c o u r t’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t d e n o v o . Se y m our v. B r unsw i ck Cor

p. , 655 S o. 2d 892, 894 ( M i s s . 1995)
. “A m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entl i es onl y w hen ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act , and the m ovi ng party i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. at 8 9 5
. F u rth er, w h en th e q u esti o n b efo re the tr ial co u rt
w a s a q u e s tio n o f l a w , o u r s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w is d e n o v o . I d. ¶6
. T h e cru x o f the P alerm o s’ sev era l arg u m en ts is that, u n d er M issi ssipp i law , p lai n ti ffs h a v e a v iab le s tric t p ro d u c ts liab ili ty c laim w ith re g a rd to h u m a n tissu e . T h e y e ss e n tially

### 5

ar gue thatSect i on 41- 41- 1 and t he M PL A have no bear i ng on one another
. Forthe r eas ons
e x p la in e d b e lo w , th e P a le rm o s ’ a rg u m e n ts h a v e n o m e ri t. ¶7. I n J ul y 1966, thi s C our tf i r s thel d t hat , undercomm on l aw , s tr i ctpr oduct s l i abi l i ty w as
a v iab le c a u se o f ac tio n . S tate Stove M f g. Co. v. Hodges , 1 8 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 6 6 ),
su p e rs e d e d

b y sta tu te , M iss
. C od e A nn . § 1 1-1-63. In el i m i nati ng pri vity o f cont ractas a
r equi r ementf

ors ui ng the manuf

actur eror s el l erof

a pr oduct , the C our texami ned both the nat i onal and l ocal l egal l ands cape . I tn oted t hatthe doctr i ne of pr i vi ty of

contr act , w hi ch
w as, i n 1966, “now uni ver s al l y r ej ect ed, ” bega n i n 1842, and court s i m m edi at el y began
e ro d in g th e c o n c e p t. I

d. a t115- 16. T he “mosti m por t ante xcept i on” t o pri vity o f contr act
w as cr e a t e d i n 19 16 , a nd mad e a s e l l e rl i a bl e b a s e d “ up on the r e l a t i on a r i s i ng f r om t he pu rchase , t ogetherw i th t he f or es eea bi l i ty of harm i f prope rcar e w as notus ed” r atherthan th a t a ri s in g fr o m c o n tr a c t. I d. (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A s to th is e x c e p tio n to p riv ity o f c o n tra c t, the C o u rtn o ted P ross er’s an alys is i n h is 19 6 4 ed it ion o f T o rts , quot i ng hi m as s ayi ng thatthe
exce pt i on “f

ound i m m edi at e ac cept ance , and atthe end of some f or ty year s i s uni ver s al l aw in th e U n ite d S ta te s , w ith th e b a re ly p o s s ib le b u t h ig h ly u n lik e ly e x c e p tio n o f M is s is s ip p i.” I d. a t 1 1 6 (q u o tin g P ro s s e r, T o rts 6 6 1 -6 3 (3 d e d . 1 9 6 4 )). T h e C o u rt th u s n o ted th a t “[p ]ri v ity of c on tr a c tb e tw e e n a c on s umero f a p r od uc ta nd i t s man uf a c tur e rh a s n otonl y been abandone d by every St at e i n the U ni on, exce ptM i s s i ssi pp i , buti thas no r at i onal bas i s f or cont i nuance i n s uch an a ct i on i n thi s j ur i s di ct i on. ” State Stove , 189 So. 2d at116. ¶8. T he C our t abol i s hed the requi rem ent of pri vity of contr act i n a s ui t by a cons um er agai ns ta manuf

actur erand hel d thata “manuf actur er , by pl aci ng a cha t t el orpr oductupon the m arket , ass um es a re s pons i bi l i ty t o the cons um er , r es t i ng notupon the contr actbutupon

### 6

the rel at i on ari si ng fr om his pu rchase , t og e the rwi th the f or e s e e a bi l i ty of

h a r m i f pr oper [ car e] i s notus ed. ” I

d. (em phas i s added)
. T he C our tthen not ed that“i n s ever al cas es begi nn i ng i n 1954, thi s C our texpr es s l y pr et erm i t t ed the ques t i on of w hetherpr i vi ty w as
n e c e s s a ry in a s u it a g a in s t a m a n u fa c tu re r, buti ndi cat ed thatr equi r em ent m ightbe r ej ected .” I d. ( empha s i s a dd e d)
. I nd e e d, i to pi ne d tha ta l l the c a s e s “ r e nd e r e d c a ve a t s t o the
a p p lica b ili ty o f [th e ] do c trin e [o f p riv ity o f c o n tra c t in a su it b y a c o n su m e r a g a in st a
m anuf actur er ] i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. ” I d . at118. T he C our tanal yzed s ever al cas es thati ndi cat ed th a t, w h e n th e p ro p e r c a se w a s b e fo re th e C o u rt, i t w o u ld e lim in a te th e re q u ire m e n t o f p riv ity
o f c o n tr a c t. I

d. at116- 18. I tal s o hi ghl i ght ed a 1927 c as e thates t abl i s hed that“p r i vi ty of contr acti s notan es s ent i al partof a ca us e of

act i on agai ns ta manuf actur er ” i n f

ood and b e v e ra g e c a s e s . I

d. at117- 18 ( ci t i ng Coca - Cola Bottling W orks v. Lyo ns , 111 S o. 305 (M iss . 1 9 2 7 )). T h u s, th e C o u rt m a d e c lea r th a t c a s e law h a d p re v io u sly in d ica ted th a t it s ho l di ng i n State Stove w as i nevi t abl e. M or eover , the C our ti ndi cat ed thatl i abi l i ty exi s t ed d u e to th e re latio n sh ip a risin g fro m th e p u rc h a se (a n d c o n se q u e n tly , the s a le) o f a p ro d u c t. I tw e nton t o a do ptthe s t a nd a r d c on t a i ne d i n the Res t a t e ment( Se c on d) of Tor t s , w hi ch
e x p lic itly c o n d itio n e d th e v ia b ility o f s tr ic t lia b ility c la im s o n th e p re s e n c e o f a s a le
. S ta te Stove , 189 So. 2d at118 ( quot i ng R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts § 402A ( “O ne w ho se lls any p ro d u c t in a d e fe c tiv e c o n d iti o n u n re a so n a b ly d a n g e ro u s to th e u se r o r c o n su m e r o r to h is pr operty i s subj ect to l i abi l i ty f orphys i cal harm ther eby ca us ed t o the ul t i m at e us eror
c o n su m e r, o r to h is p ro p e rty . . . .” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ) (C o m m e n t d p ro v id e s th a t th e ru le

“ e x ten d s to a n y p ro d u c t so ld in th e co n d iti o n . . . in w h ich itis ex p e c ted to re a c h the u lti m a te
us eror cons um er . ”) ( comm ent s r epea t edl y r ef ert o a s al e as a nec es s ary pr edi cat e f ors tr i ct

### 7

p ro d u c ts lia b ility ))
. ¶9. In M ay of 19 66 , the L egis l ature passed the blood ban king st atute. 19 66 M i ss. L aw s, C h . 4 7 5 , § 1 ; s ee M i s s . C ode A nn. §41- 41- 1 ( R ev. 2013)
. T he l aw pr ovi ded that [ t ] he pr ocur ement , pr oces s i ng, s t or age, di s tr i but i on and/ orus e of w hol e bl ood, pl as m a, bl ood pr oduct s , and bl ood der i vat i ves fort he purpos e of i nj ect i ng or tra n sfu sin g , tran sp lan tin g th e sa m e o r a n y o f th e m in to th e h u m a n b o d y fo r a ll purpos es w hat s oeveri s the r ender i ng of a s ervi ce by every per s on part i ci pat i ng ther ei n, . . . and does notcons t i tut e a s al e. 1966 M i s s . L aw s , C h. 475, § 1. T hi s st at ute and other s of i t s i l k ar e of

t en coi ned “bl ood shi el d” st atutes . T he hi s t or i cal l egal l ands cape s urr oundi ng the ena ctm entof thes e s t atut es i s p e r t i n e n tt o th e P a l e r mo s ’ a r g u me n tth a tth i s s t a tu t e h a s n o th i n g t o d o wi th th e M P L A. T he s t atut ory a nd c om m on l aw pr ot ect i on of the s uppl i er s of

bl ood and bl ood pr oduct s f

r om s tr i ctl i abi l i ty and br eac h of w arr anty cl ai m s devel oped dur i ng th e m id 6 0 ’s th ro u g h e a rly 7 0 ’s in re sp o n se to th e tra n sm iss io n o f th e h e p a tit is v iru s b y b lo o d a n d b lo o d p ro d u c ts. . . . S tate s fe a re d th a t th e th re a t o f liab ili ty w i thoutf aul tw oul d dr i ve the s uppl i er s outof the very nece s s ary bus i nes s of p ro v id in g b lo o d
. D oe v. T

r avenol L abs . , I nc. , 6 9 8 F . S u p p . 7 8 0 , 7 8 2 (D . M in n . 1 9 8 8 ) (c iti n g C o m m e n t, H os pi taland B l ood B anks Li abi l i t y to Pat i ent

s W ho C ontr act

A I D S thr ough B l ood Trans f us i on , 23 S an D iego L
. R ev . 8 7 5 , 8 8 3 (19 8 6 )). W hi l e Sect i on 41- 41- 1 has neverbeen in terp re ted b y th is C o u rt, i t ha s b e e n w id e ly re g a rd e d a s a “ b lo o d sh ield ” sta tu te, a lo n g w ith
s im ila r s ta tu te s p a s s e d b y o th e r s ta te s . See M ic h a e l J . M ille r, N o te , Str i ct L i abi l i t y, N egli gen ce an d the St an da rd of C are f or T ransf usi on -Transm i t t ed D isease , 36 A r i z. L
. R ev. 473, 488- 490 ( 1994) ( “I n 48 s t at es the comm on l aw of l i abi l i ty f

ordi s eas es tr ans m i t t ed by bl ood no l ongerappl i es beca us e the l egi s l atur es ha ve pas s ed s t atut es t o pr ot ecthos pi t al s and bl ood banks f

r om s tr i ctl i abi l i ty. T he exc ept i ons ar e N ew J er s ey, and V erm ont . ”) ( “The

### 8

m a jo rity o f th e se sta tu tes . . . sp e c ify th a t b lo o d is a [se rv ice ] an d n o t a [sa le]. T h e m a jo rity
o f th e sta tu tes a lso e ith e r sp e c ify th a t n e g lig e n c e is th e o n ly th e o ry a v a ilab le, o r sp e c ifica lly excl ude both s tr i c tpr od uc t s l i a bi l i ty a nd i mpl i e d warr a nty the or i e s . . . . Ei gh ts t a t es [ i ncl udi ng M i s s i s s i ppi ] do notm ent i on any theory s peci f i cal l y, butrat her rel y on the
s a le s /s e rv ic e d is tin c tio n .” ); S a lb u , S te v e n R ., A I D S and the Bl ood Suppl y: A n A nal

ys is of Law , R egulat i on, and P ubl i c Pol i cy , 74 W as h. U
. L
. Q
. 913, 923 ( 1996) ( “M os ts t atues def i ne th e d istrib u tio n o f b lo o d a n d b lo o d co m p o n e n ts a s a p ro v isio n o f se rv ice s ra th e r th a n a sa le of produ ct s, eff

ect i vely r em ov i ng them fr om the scope of stri ctl i abil i ty an d w arr anty act i on s. . . .” ); M c In to s h , P h illip L ., To rtR ef or m i n Mis s is s i

ppi : A n Appr ais alof

the N ew Law of P ro d u c ts L ia b ili ty, P a rt I, 16 M i s s . C
. L
. R ev. 393, 410 ( 1996) ( “Pr oces s i ng and di s tr i but i ng bl ood and bl ood produc t s ar e cl ear l y out s i de the s cope of pr oduct s l i abi l i ty rul es beca us e the le g is la tu re h a s d e s ig n a te d s u c h a c tiv itie s a s s e rv ic e s , n o t s a le s .” ). ¶10. G i ven the hi s t or i cal cont extw hen t he L egi s l atur e pas s ed Sect i on 41-41- 1, and t he f act th a t th e c o m m o n la w a n d R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts p re d ica ted stric t p ro d u c ts liab ili ty i n t or ton the exi s t ence of a s al e, the l ogi cal c oncl us i on i s that , i n pa s s i ng Sect i on 41- 41- 1, th e L e g is la tu re in te n d e d to e x e m p t b lo o d fr o m str ic t p ro d u c ts lia b ility la w . S e e , e .g ., W il s on v. A m . R ed Cross , 6 00 So
. 2 d 21 6, 2 17
- 18 ( A l a . 1 99 2) ( i nt e rpr e t i ng a s i mi l a rs t a tut e and fin d in g th a t th e lan g u a g e “fo r all p u rp o se s” m e a n s th a t th e L e g isla tu re in ten d e d th e sta tu te “t o be appl i cabl e f

oral l purpos es , i ncl udi ng negl i gence act i ons , br eac h of contr actact i ons
a n d ” stric t li a b ili ty a c tio n s); Murphy v. E . R. Squibb & Sons, I nc. , 7 1 0 P .2 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 2 (C a l. 1985) (not i ng t hatt he purpos e of a si m i l arst atut e t hatdef i ned t he di s tr i but i on or us e of bl ood
as a s ervi ce a nd nota s al e “i s t o avoi d appl i cat i on of the doctr i ne of

s tr i ctl i abi l i ty . . . ther eby

### 9

p ro m o tin g th e c o n sta n t av a ilab ili ty o f a n a d e q u a te s u p p ly o f b lo o d ” ); Condos v. Mu sculoskeletal Tran splan t Fou ndation , 20 8 F. Sup p. 2d12 26 ( D
. U t ah 2002) ( i nt erpr et i ng
a sim ilar s tatu e a n d c o m m o n la w s trict liab ili ty , a n d fin d in g th a t h u m a n b o n e tiss u e is n o t a “p rod u ct” an d the d istri b u ti o n o f su ch is no t a “sa le” fo r pu rpo ses o f stri ct pro d u cts l iabili ty); R oyerv. Miles L ab. , I

nc. , 811 P. 2d 644 ( O r . C t . A pp. 1991) ( i nt erpr et i ng a s i m i l ars t atut e, and not i ng that“[ i ] n 1969, w hen the s t atut e w as enac t ed, w hatl i abi l i ty ther e w as f ori nj ur i es
caus ed by def

ect i ve pr oduct s w as base d on conce pt s re l at i ng t o cont r actual w arr ant i es [ , ] ” but that“ [ s ] tr i ctl i abi l i ty i n a t or ta ct i on . . . w as a tthe i nf ants t age” ) ( R evi ew i ng l egis l at i ve hi s t ory and f

i ndi ng that“[ t ] he cont exti n w hi ch the s t atut e w as enact ed hel ps expl ai n w hy
s tr i ctl i abi l i ty w as notm ent i oned expr es s l y . . . . A tthatt i m e, the court s had j us tcr eat ed s tr i ct l i abil i ty, an d itw as seen as an offs ho ot of w arr anty l aw . . . ” and con cl ud i ng that “[ b] ecause stric t li a b ili ty c a n n o t arise w ith o u t th e re h a v in g b e e n a sa le, d e fe n d a n ts c o u ld n o t b e stric tly li ab le. ”). ¶11. Sect i on 41- 41- 1 w as amended i n 1975 and agai n i n 1980, and t he on l y subst ant i ve
c h a n g e s m a d e p e rta in e d to th e “ sh e lf-life” o f b lo o d , a p o rtio n o f th e sta tu te irr e lev a n t to t od a y’ s c a s e . I n 1 98 7, the Leg i s l a tur e a mend e d Se c t i on 41
- 41
- 1 t o i nc l ud e i n i t s pu r vi ew “human t i s s ue, or gans orbones , ” and Sec t i on 41- 41- 1 has s i nce r emai ned unchange d. 1987 M i s s . L aw s , C h. 401, § 1. I n i t s pr es entf or m , Sect i on 41- 41- 1 pr ovi des that T he pr ocur ement , pr oces s i ng, s t or age, di s tr i but i on a nd/ orus e of w hol e bl ood, pl as m a, bl ood pr oduct s a nd bl ood de r i vat i ves , human t i s s ue, or gans orbones f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

i n j e c t i n g , tr a n s f

u s i n g , tr a n s p l a n t i n g o rtr a n s f e rr i n g th e s a me orany of them i nt o the hum an body f ora l l purpos es w hat s oeverc ons t i tut es the r ender i ng of a s ervi ce by every per s on part i ci pat i ng ther ei n, w hetherornotany re m u n e ra tio n is p a id th e re fo re , a n d d o e s n o t c o n s titu te a s a le
. . . .

### Even though common l aw s tric t l ia bil it y “i s no l onger

thea uthorit y on the ne ce ss ar

y 1 

### el em ent s of a produc ts l ia bil it y a ction”duet o the adoption of theMPLA, t

he c omm on law prin ciples “are a driving force in products liabilityaction s evenafter ado ptio n o f the statute.” Huff v. Shopsmi

th, Inc . , 78 6 S o. 2 d 3 83 , 38 7 (M iss. 20 01 ); se e al so Willia ms v. B enn ett, 921 So. 2d 1269, 1274 (Mi ss . 2006) (“ Sim il ar to i ts commo n law pr ede ce ss or, today’s st at utor y sc hem e ref

le ct s the s am e t enor as the common l aw s che meadopt ed f rom the Res tate me nt ( Sec ond) of

Tort s by this Court

in Stat e St ove .”). In 2 01 4, th e Leg islature amend ed th e MP LAto in clud e “desig ners.” 2 01 4 M iss. 2 

### Laws Ch. 383, § 1. 10 M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -4 1 -1 (R e v . 2 0 1 3 ). ¶12. I n 1993, the Legi s l atur e codi f i ed s tr i ctpr oduct s l i abi l i ty. 1993 M i s s . L aw s , C h. 302, 1 § 1 . I n d o in g s o , it p ro v id e d fo r s tr ic t lia b ility c la im s a g a in s t a “ m a n u fa c tu re r” o r a “ s e lle r.” I d. ; s ee al

s o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 63 ( R ev. 2014)
. W hen the Legi s l atur e pas s ed the M P L A , itd id so w ith th e k n o w le d g e th a t, “fo r a ll p u rp o se s w h a tso e v e r,” it h a d sta tu to rily defi ned peo ple i nv olved i n b l oo d p rocurem ent, processi ng , st orage, dis tri bu t i on , and / or use
as s ervi ce pr ovi der s , and thatt hi s def i ni t i on as a s ervi ce pr ovi der“f oral l purpos es
w h a tso e v e r” h a d b e e n th e la w fo r tw e n ty -se v e n y e a rs. It a lso p a ss e d th e M P L A w ith th e fu ll know l edge thatpeopl e i nvol ved i n the pr ocur ement , proc es s i ng, st or age, di s tr i but i on, and/ or use of hu m an ti ssue w ere s t atutor i l y d efi ned as service provider s, an d h ad b een for si x y ears . Y e t, in p a ss in g th e p ro d u c ts lia b ili ty la w , the L e g isla tu re c h o se o n ly to a p p ly stric t p ro d u c ts liab ili ty to “ m a n u fa c tu re rs” a n d “ s e llers ,” a n d d id n o t in c lu d e se rv ice p ro v id e rs in its p u r v i e w. 2 ¶13. T hi s C our tdoes not“ deci de w hata s t atut e s houl d pr ovi de, but[ ] det erm i ne[ s ] w hat i tdoes pr ovi de. ” L aw s on v. H oneyw el l I n tern. , Inc. , 7 5 S o . 3 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 2 7 (M iss. 2 0 1 1 ). “The C our t ’ s goal i s t o gi ve ef f ectt o the i nt entof

the Legi s l atur e. ” I

d. T o det erm i ne that

### 11

in te n t, t h is C o u rt lo o k s fi rs t to th e la n g u a g e o f t h e s ta tu te . I d. “If the w o rds o f a statute are cl eara nd una m bi guous , the C our ta ppl i es the pl ai n meani ng of the s t atut e and r ef

r ai ns f r om
us i ng pr i nci pl es of

s t atut ory c ons truct i on. ” I d. Fur therm or e, w or ds and phr as es cont ai ned in a s ta tu te a re to b e g iv e n th e irc o m m o n a n d o rd in a ry m e a n in g . I d. at1028.

“ M a n u fa c tu re r” a n d “ se ller” a re n o t d e fin e d b y th e M P L A , thu s, th is C o u rt a p p lies th e ir
comm on orpopul armeani ng. B l ack’ s Law D i ct i onary de f i nes a “ s el l er ” as “ a per s on w ho
s el l s anythi ng. ” B lack’s La w D i ct i on ary ( 9th ed. 2009). Sect i on 41- 41- 1 expl i ci t l y pr ovi des thatthos e i nvol ved i n the pr oces s i ng of hum an t i s s ues ar e nots el l i ng anythi ng, butpr ovi di ng
a s ervi ce, thus , they ar e cl ear l y not“s el l er s ” underthe M PL A
. T hi s C our thas def i ned “manuf actur er ” f

ors tr i ctl i abi l i ty purpos es as “a per s on orcompany w ho r egul ar l y and i n the
cour s e of the i rpr i nc i pa l bu s i ne s s , c r e a t e s , a s s e mbl e s a nd / orpr e pa r e s go od s f ors a l e t o the
cons um i ng publ i c. ” L aw s on , 75 So. 3d a t1028 ( quot i ng Scor dino v. Hopem an B r os . , I nc. , 66 2 S o. 2d 640 , 645 ( M i ss. 199 5)) ( i nternal qu otat i on s and al t erat i on s om i t t ed). Ithas al so not ed that“a manuf

actur erpr oduces goods as a pr i nci pal par tof i t s bus i nes s and s el l s them ei therdi r ect l y orf

orr es al e t o the cons um i ng publ i c. ” L aw s on , 75 So. 3d at1029 ( quot i ng Sc or dino , 6 6 2 S o . 2 d a t 6 4 5 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s a n d a ltera tio n s o m itt e d ). In c o n tra st, B lack ’s L aw D iction ary d efine s a “ serv ice” as “ [t ] h e a ct of d o ing so m ethin g u sefu l f o r a per s on o rc ompa ny , ” “ [ a ] p e r s on o rc ompa ny whos e b us i ne s s i s t o do u s e f ul t hi ngs f

or other s , ” and “ [ a] n i nt angi bl e com m odi ty i n t he f or m of hum an ef

f or t , s uch as l abor , s ki l l , or advi ce. ” B lack’s La w D i ct i on ary (9th ed
. 2 0 0 9 ). ¶ 1 4
. A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r d o e s n o t “ p r o d u c e ” a g o o d f o rs a le
. See L aw s on , 75 So. 3d at 1 0 2 9 . “ B lack’s Law D i ct i onar y d efine s ‘pro d u ce ’ as ‘to b ri n g into e x ist en ce ’ o r ‘t o cre ate.’ ”

### Were c ogni z e that s om e o f thea c t i on s p e r f

or m e d byp e op l e who f

a llunder the 3 

### purvi ew of

Sec ti on 41-41- 1 ar e not

tradi ti onalor c omm on “s er vic es .”Howe ver , thef

ac t t hat thos e pe oplear e s tatutori ly de fined, “f or a llpurpos es what soe ver” a s providing a s ervice over ri des any tra ditiona l notions of what a se rvi ceis in t

his circ ums tance . 12 I d. ( quot i ng B lack’s La w D i ct i on ary 1245 ( 8th ed. 2004))
. T hi s C our thas i ndi cat ed that“the
m a n u fa c tu re r o f a g o o d is th e p e rs o n o r c o m p a n y w h o b ri n g s th e g o o d in to its ta n g ib le fo rm .” L aw s on , 75 So. 3d at1029. W hen a c om pany, by s t atut ory def i ni t i on, pr ovi des a s ervi ce by doi ng s om ethi ng us ef

ul f orother s , i ti s not , beca us e of thats t atut ory de f

i ni t i on, f unct i oni ng
a s a “ m a n u fa c tu re r” u n d e r th e d e fin iti o n s o f “ m a n u fa c tu re r” p ro v id e d b y th is C o u rt. See id. 3 T hus , a mer e s ervi ce pr ovi der“does notf al l underthe def

i ni t i on of a ‘ m anuf

actur er , ’ as that t erm i s us ed i n the M PL A
. ” I d. “ T he L egi s l atur e di d nots t at e thatthe M PL A a ppl i es t o, or pr ecl udes , c l ai m s a gai ns t[ s ervi ce pr ovi der s ]
. H ol di ng thatthe M PL A i s appl i cabl e t o s uch
c laim s w o u ld c o n stitu te a n im p ro p e r a d d iti o n to th e sta tu te, s in c e [se rv ice p ro v id e rs] p lain ly
ar e omi t t ed. ” I

d. at1030. ¶ 1 5
. T h e h is to ric a l c o n tex t o f S e c tio n 4 1 -4 1 -1 in d ica tes th a t th e L e g isla tu re in ten d e d to exempt“eve ry per s on part i ci pat i ng” i n the “pr ocur ement , pr oces s i ng, s t or age, di s tr i but i on, and/ orus e” of

“w hol e bl ood, p l as m a, bl ood pr oduct s and bl ood der i vat i ves , hum an t i s s ue,
or gans orbones f

orthe purpos e of

i nj ect i ng, tr ans f

us i ng, tr ans pl ant i ng ortr ans f err i ng the
sa m e o r a n y o f th e m in to th e h u m a n b o d y ” fro m liab ili ty u n d e r th e th e o ry o f stric t p ro d u c ts l i abi l i ty. N othi ng i n the M PL A i ndi cat es thatthe Legi s l atur e i nt ended t o change thatl ongs t andi ng conce pt . M or eover , even a bs entthe hi s t or i cal cont extr egar di ng the i nt erpl ay of S e c tio n 4 1 -4 1 -1 an d strict liab ili ty law , th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e M P L A m a k e s c lea r th a t it d o e s n o t ap p ly to m e re se rv ice p ro v id e rs. In th is c irc u m sta n c e , L ife L in k is s tatu to rily

### 13

def i ned as a s ervi ce pr ovi der
. T hus , the tr i al cour tdi d noterrby gr ant i ng L i f eLi nk’ s m ot i on fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e P a ler m o s’ p ro d u c t liab ili ty c laim , n o r d id th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
e rr b y a ff

ir m in g th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. ¶ 1 6
. AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , P . JJ. , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.