May 2006 - Alabama Supreme Court Holds that Hepatitis-infected Kidney is not an Inherently Dangerous Product.

In an opinion released on May 26, 2006, the Alabama Supreme Court has held that a Hepatitis-infected kidney is not an "inherently dangerous product" under Alabama law.  Plaintiff sued LifeLink Foundation, an organ procurement organization, and Auxilio Mutuo Hospital, a Puerto Rico hospital, for damages related to her receipt of a Hepatitis-infected kidney by transplant.  Auxilio Mutuo Hospital's laboratory tested the blood serum from the kidney, and failed to note the presence of Hepatitis.  Auxilio Mutuo challenged personal jurisdiction of the Alabama courts over it.  The trial court found that Auxilio Muto had sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama to support jurisdiction, in an Order which also found that the Hepatitis-infected kidney was an "inherently dangerous product," justifying a lower standard of proof to support jurisdiction.

In granting Auxilio Mutuo's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and finding that it did not have sufficient contacts with Alabama to support jurisdiction, the Supreme Court also stated:

In DeFore v. Bourjois, Inc., 268 Ala. 228, 105 So.2d 846 (1958), this court, in determining whether a perfume bottle was inherently dangerous, quoted the following definition of a product that is inherently dangerous to life or health from 42 A.L.R. 1243 at 1244:

"An article may be said to be inherently dangerous where the danger lies in the nature or character of the article. [...]"

***
Applying the above definition, we hold that a human organ is not an inherently dangerous product.  While the human kidney involved in this particular case was defective, human kidneys in general are not inherently dangerous.
--Ex parte Hospital Espanol de Auxilio Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc., Sup. Ct. Case No. 1050685, pp. 19-21.

BBMN member Jack Owen represented LifeLink Foundation in the litigation.

Back