Court Opinion

ID: 9643649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:36:21.561283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:02.095624
License: Public Domain

MUSMANNO, J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that the broad language of Pennsylvania’s Blood Shield Statute could be con*815strued to include commercial sellers of blood products. However, the wording of the Statute is so sweeping and ambiguous that it could be interpreted to protect from strict liability or breach of implied warranty claims any individual or entity involved in the blood transfusion process, including a manufacturer of a contaminated component mixed into a blood product or even a seller of defective intravenous bags, tubing, or needles used in the transfusion process. Surely, our Legislature did not intend to immunize such “persons” from liability under the Statute.
Even if the language of the Statute permits an interpretation that could include protection for a commercial seller of blood products, however, in my judgment, public policy concerns do not allow for such an interpretation. In my opinion, policy concerns dictate that we interpret our Blood Shield Statute so as to limit its protection to non-profit gatherers and distributors of blood and blood products. It is those entities that might be inclined to discontinue their services if required to defend against strict liability or breach of implied warranty actions. Commercial, for-profit sellers of blood products, however, would not be dissuaded from selling their products if subjected to such actions any more than for-profit sellers of other products crucial to maintaining health, such as manufacturers of certain life-saving drugs or medical devices. Sellers of blood products, like sellers of all healthcare products, should bear the burden of injuries caused by their products. These sellers profit from the sale of their products and, therefore, are able to bear, the costs of such injuries, through liability insurance or otherwise, better than the innocent users of the products. For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.