Cryolife, Inc. v. Superior Court

Bad Law
110 Cal. App. 4th 1145·2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 396·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1133·2003 Daily Journal DAR 8286·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6635
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 25, 2003H024960California5,948 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this original proceeding, defendant Cryolife, Inc. (Cryolife) petitions for extraordinary relief from the orders of respondent court overruling Cryolife’s demurrer to the cause of action for strict products liability and denying Cryolife’s motion to strike the punitive damages claim. Petitioner contends, as a matter of first impression, that real party in interest Alan J. Minvielle cannot state a cause of action for strict products liability because Cryolife is a tissue bank that as a matter of law provided a service, not a product, when it supplied an allegedly infected cadaver tendon for real party in interest’s knee surgery. Petitioner also argues as a matter of first impression that because it is a tissue bank, it is a health care provider within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13, and therefore a claim for punitive damages cannot be asserted in the absence of an order granting leave to amend the complaint. We agree with both of petitioner’s arguments, and therefore we will issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent court to vacate its orders overruling the demurrer to the strict liability cause of action and denying…

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.