J.K.B. v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co.
Indiana Court of Appeals
660 N.E.2d 602 (1996)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
J.K.B. was a child who suffered from hemophilia. From 1980 to 1986, J.K.B. received a blood-clotting product, Factor VIII, produced and sold by Armour Pharmaceutical Company and other pharmaceutical companies (companies) (defendants). The Factor VIII product used by J.K.B. to treat his hemophilia had been contaminated by the HIV virus. J.K.B. contracted AIDS and died in 1991. J.K.B.’s parents (plaintiffs) initiated a products-liability lawsuit against the companies, alleging that the companies were liable for the harm caused to J.K.B. by the companies’ Factor VIII products on the grounds of negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, and strict liability. The companies filed a motion for summary judgment on the strict-liability claim, arguing that they were protected from liability under Indiana’s blood-shield statute (the statute). Specifically, the companies claimed that their provision of Factor VIII products constituted a service rather than a sale of the products and that each company constituted a storage facility for the purpose of the statute. Furthermore, the companies asserted that because they were licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they met the statutory requirement to be licensed under the laws of any state. The court granted the companies’ motion, and J.K.B.’s parents appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Robertson, J.)
Concurrence (Chezem, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.