Anderson v. Somberg
New Jersey Supreme Court
338 A.2d 1, 423 U.S. 929 (1975)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Henry Anderson (plaintiff) had a back operation at St. James Hospital (defendant). The operation was performed by Dr. Somberg (defendant). Among the tools that the surgeon used during the operation was a pituitary rongeur, manufactured by Lawton Instrument Company (defendant). The hospital had purchased the rongeur from Reinhold-Schumann, Inc. (defendant) four years prior to Anderson’s surgery. The rongeur had been used in many surgeries by about 20 different surgeons. During Anderson’s operation, the tip of the rongeur broke off inside Anderson’s spinal canal. Dr. Somberg tried several times to retrieve the metal fragment but was unsuccessful. The fragment remained in Anderson’s back, requiring Anderson to undergo additional surgeries. Anderson sued the surgeon for malpractice, the hospital for negligence, the rongeur’s manufacturer for strict liability in tort, and the rongeur’s distributor for breach of warranty. The jury found that Anderson had failed to state a cause of action against all four defendants. Anderson appealed. The court of appeals held that the jury should have been instructed that any of the four defendants that failed to prove its non-culpability should be held liable. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pashman, J.)
Dissent (Mountain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
