Skelton v. Druid City Hospital Board
Alabama Supreme Court
459 So. 2d 818 (1984)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
M. C. Skelton (plaintiff) was operated on at a public hospital run by the Druid City Hospital Board (the hospital) (defendant). During the operation, a suturing needle broke off in Skelton’s body and remained there after the surgery. Skelton and his wife (plaintiff) filed a complaint against the hospital, the manufacturer and distributor of the needles, and the doctor who performed the operation. The Skeltons claim against the hospital alleged negligence based on a theory of breach of implied warranty. The Skeltons argued that the needle was not fit for its intended purpose, and that M.C. was injured as a direct result. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was a provider of services, not goods, and that the needle was a piece of equipment incidental to the surgery provided. The Skeltons argued that a warranty for the needle did exist. The Alabama Uniform Commercial Code § 7-2-315, Code 1975 (the code), imposed a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose on sellers if they had a reason to know of any particular purpose for which a buyer required goods and that the buyer was relying on the seller’s skill or judgment, unless a warranty was expressly excluded or modified. The trial court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that no warranty existed because the hospital was not a seller of goods under the code. The Skeltons appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Embry, J.)
Concurrence (Torbert, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.