Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank
California Court of Appeal
7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101 (1992)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
In 1983, at the age of three weeks, Michael Osborn (plaintiff) contracted the AIDS virus from a blood transfusion during a surgical procedure performed at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (Medical Center) (defendant). The blood for the transfusion was supplied by the Irwin Memorial Blood Bank (Irwin) (defendant). Michael’s parents, Paul and Mary (plaintiffs) filed suit against the Medical Center and Irwin for damages on various theories. The trial court granted the Medical Center’s motion to dismiss the claims against it. At trial against the remaining defendant, Irwin, experts on behalf of the Osborns testified that Irwin’s blood testing and donor screening practices prior to Michael’s surgery were negligent given the concerns nationwide about AIDS at the time and because Irwin did not perform anti-HBc tests on its donors. Conversely, experts testifying on behalf of Irwin noted that Irwin’s blood testing and donor screening practices at the time were consistent with those of other blood banks across the country. The jury held for the Osborns. Thereafter, the trial court granted Irwin’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of negligence. The Osborns appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Perley, A.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.