Case Name: FRANCES MAGRINE AND ALFRED MAGRINE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DAVID SPECTOR, d/b/a PRECISION BUR COMPANY AND E. P. KEANE, INDIV. AND t/a KEANE DENTAL SUPPLY, DEFENDANTS; VINCENT KRASNICA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v. DAVID SPECTOR, d/b/a PRECISION BUR COMPANY AND E. P. KEANE, INDIV. AND t/a KEANE DENTAL SUPPLY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1968-04-02
Citations: 100 N.J. Super. 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRANCES MAGRINE AND ALFRED MAGRINE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DAVID SPECTOR, d/b/a PRECISION BUR COMPANY AND E. P. KEANE, INDIV. AND t/a KEANE DENTAL SUPPLY, DEFENDANTS. VINCENT KRASNICA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v. DAVID SPECTOR, d/b/a PRECISION BUR COMPANY AND E. P. KEANE, INDIV. AND t/a KEANE DENTAL SUPPLY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 223–241

Head Matter:
FRANCES MAGRINE AND ALFRED MAGRINE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DAVID SPECTOR, d/b/a PRECISION BUR COMPANY AND E. P. KEANE, INDIV. AND t/a KEANE DENTAL SUPPLY, DEFENDANTS. VINCENT KRASNICA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v. DAVID SPECTOR, d/b/a PRECISION BUR COMPANY AND E. P. KEANE, INDIV. AND t/a KEANE DENTAL SUPPLY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued December 18, 1967
Decided April 2, 1968.
Before Judges Kilkenny, Carton and Botter.
Mr. Leivis M. Holland argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Warren, Chasan, Leyner & Holland, attorneys).
Mr. Geoffrey Gaulkin argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Beggans and Keale, attorneys).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff-patient Prances Magrine brought action against defendant-dentist to recover for personal injuries sustained when a latently defective hypodermic needle broke or separated while it was being injected into her gum by defendant. Plaintiff Alfred Mhgrine sought to recover derivative damages.
The pertinent facts are set forth in Judge Lynch's opinion, reported sub. nom. Magrine v. Krasnica, 94 N. J. Super. 228 (Cty. Ct. 1967).
The stipulation of facts upon which the case was submitted included the following: Plaintiff makes no assertion or claim that defendant failed to do what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances or that defendant did what a reasonably prudent person would not have done. Plaintiff relies upon strict liability, breach of warranty and breach of contract to recover.
Judge Lynch, in an opinion in which he carefully reviewed the recent developments of the doctrine of strict liability and analyzed various policy decisions involved, concluded that judgment should be entered for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.
The sole issue presented here is whether a dentist is strictly liable to a patient injured by a defective instrument used in the course of treatment. In our opinion, the imposition of liability on the defendant-dentist cannot be justified on the basis of any of the accepted policies which- underlie the doctrine of strict liability as it Is presently understood. Nor are we persuaded that that doctrine should be extended under the circumstances of this case so as to render the defendant-dentist liable without fault for a defect in a needle which he merely purchased and used.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.