Evraets

Evraets v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc.

Bad Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1083·29 Cal. App. 2d 779·29 Cal. App. 4th 779·34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 852·94 Daily Journal DAR 15101
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 26, 1994B073283California4,911 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

An individual was injured by an intraocular lens that had been surgically implanted in his eye. He sued the manufacturer and distributor of the device for damages. His suit was dismissed by the trial court.

We conclude that the victim’s claims of negligence and strict liability under state tort law are preempted by federal law. His claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness fails for lack of privity. However, his breach of express warranty and fraud claims, as well as his negligence per se claim that the manufacturer violated numerous federal regulations governing investigative device protocols, are sufficient to withstand a demurrer.

Facts

Appeal is taken from an order of dismissal after demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. In reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we assume that the facts properly pleaded in the first amended complaint are true. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 146 , 793 P.2d 479 , 16 A.L.R.5th 903 ].)

In September of 1983, appellant John C. Evraets underwent eye surgery at a hospital in Long Beach. At that time, a cataract was extracted, and an artificial lens was implanted. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.