Business Law 13th Edition by Frank Cross, Kenneth Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller

Exercise 13

BACKGROUND AND FACTS?In 2005, Jeffrey Johnson was taken to the emergency room for an episode of atrial fibrillation, a heart rhythm disorder. Dr. David Hahn used a defibrillator manufactured by Medtronic, Inc., to deliver electric shocks to Johnson's heart. The defibrillator had synchronous and asynchronous modes, and it reverted to the asynchronous mode after each use. Dr. Hahn intended to deliver synchronized shocks, which required him to select the synchronous mode for each shock.
Unfortunately, Dr. Hahn did not read the device's instructions, which Medtronic provided both in a manual and on the device itself. As a result, he delivered a synchronized shock, followed by twelve asynchronous shocks that endangered Johnson's life. Johnson and his wife filed a product liability suit against Medtronic, asserting both that Medtronic had provided inadequate warnings about the defibrillator and that the device had a design defect. The trial court found for Medtronic under both product liability theories. The Johnsons appealed.
IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT
James Edward WELSH, Judge.
Jeffrey Johnson was not damaged as a result of the [defibrillator] being sold without an adequate warning, at least as described by the Johnsons. The undisputed facts established that Dr. Hahn failed to read or in any way follow the instructions * * * , and the Johnsons have not contended that the manner in which the instructions were provided failed to effectively communicate to users * * *. * * * *
* * * We nevertheless conclude that [the Johnsons] have raised [enough evidence about] whether the [defibrillator] was * * * in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use and whether Dr. Hahn's actions constituted a " reasonably anticipated use" of the device.
* * * * We recognize that Dr. Hahn's actions in this case were contrary to the instructions provided by Medtronic, both on a label on the defibrillator and in its instruction manual. However, the fact that a particular use of a product is contrary to the manufacturer's instructions does not, per se, establish that the use could not be anticipated. [Emphasis added.]
The fact that we have rejected the Johnsons' failure to warn claim does not mandate a similar result as to the product defect claim. As the Missouri Supreme Court emphasized recently, "Design defect and failure to warn theories constitute distinct theories aimed at protecting consumers from dangers that arise in different ways."
In other words, in certain instances, a manufacturer may be held liable where it chooses to warn of the danger (even admittedly adequately warn) rather than preclude the danger by design.
DECISION AND REMEDY?The Missouri appellate court held that the Johnsons could not pursue a claim based on the inadequacy of Medtronic's warnings, but that they could pursue a claim alleging a design defect. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's decision in part and reversed it in part. The Legal Environment Dimension?What could Medtronic have done to avoid possible liability to plaintiffs like the Johnsons? Was there a reasonable alternative design for the defibrillator?
The Economic Dimension?Could Hahn or the hospital be held liable for Johnson's injury on a product liability theory? Explain.