Court Opinion

ID: 9548870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:09:58.940371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:32.886729
License: Public Domain

LOPEZ, Judge. We concur in that part of Judge Hendley’s opinion relating to strict liability as to all the parties and we also concur in that part of Judge Hendley’s opinion on negligence relating to St. Joseph’s Hospital. The following is the majority opinion as to negligence of Blood Services.  The sole issue that was presented to the trial court under this point was whether the defendant had used due care under the circumstances. The plaintiffs did not dispute that, in using paid donors, Blood Services complied fully with: (a) all existing Federal regulations, (b) all accreditation standards of the American Association of Blood Banks, and (c) Blood Services’ own internal regulations. ' By showing that they met these standards Blood Services established that they had acted with due care under the circumstances. The only evidence submitted by plaintiffs to controvert this showing was the affidavit of Dr. Mosley, a professor of medicine from the University of California. In his affidavit Dr. Mosley did not refute that these were the existing standards nor did he show that Blood Services had not complied with them. The most that his affidavit established was that he was of the opinion that the standards should be changed and that because of the risk involved it was negligent to use the blood of paid donors. “[0]ne person’s preference does not establish a standard of care.” Hutchins v. Blood Services of Montana, 506 P.2d 449 (Mont.1973); Gandara v. Wilson, 85 N.M. 161, 509 P.2d 1356 (Ct. App.1973). “ * * * However, in order to prove a case of actionable negligence, plaintiff must do more than have an expert witness testify that he would like to have the test used. Plaintiff had to establish, by competent medical evidence, either that Blood Services did something blood bankers of ordinary care, skill and diligence would not have done under similar conditions, or it omitted to do something they would have done under similar circumstances. * * *” Hutchins v. Blood Services of Montana, supra. Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, which we are obliged to do, Reinhart v. Rauscher Pierce Securities Corp., 83 N.M. 194, 490 P.2d 240 (Ct.App.1971), we conclude that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact as to the negligence of Blood Services. The trial court, therefore, properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on this issue. Section 21-1-1 (56) (c), N.M. S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4). Goodman v. Brock, 83 N.M. 789, 498 P.2d 676 (1972). HERNANDEZ, J., concurs.