Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. — Feb. 2017 (Summary)

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
No. 92210-1 (Wash. Feb. 9, 2017)

The Supreme Court of Washington vacated a jury verdict on behalf of a manufacturer, finding that the trial court had failed to instruct the jury that the manufacturer had a duty to warn the hospital of the dangers of the device it had purchased.

The case, which was a feature story in The New York Times a number of years ago, arose following complications the patient suffered after a prostatectomy in which the surgeon used the da Vinci robot.  The patient sued the surgeon, the hospital, and the manufacturer of the device.  After settling with the surgeon and the hospital, the patient pursued the case against the manufacturer.  At trial, the court failed to instruct the jury that the manufacturer had a duty to warn the hospital, and the jury found in favor of the manufacturer.

On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court found that, under state law, manufacturers have a duty to warn the purchasers of dangerous products.  In this case, the hospital was the purchaser of the dangerous product.  The manufacturer’s duty to warn was not satisfied by warning the physician who used the device.  Rather, the court concluded that hospitals need to know the dangers of the products they own.  The product warnings to hospitals will help hospitals to “design a credentialing process that will keep patients as safe as possible.”

In response to an argument from the manufacturer, that warning the physician should be sufficient because the physician served as a “learned intermediary,” the court concluded that the “learned intermediary doctrine” underscores the importance of patient safety.  Therefore, the court concluded, “it would be illogical if the doctrine was used to excuse another avenue to achieve that goal.  If patient safety is the goal, then it requires all hands on deck.”

Thus, the court concluded that manufacturers have a duty to warn hospitals about the dangers of their products.  The court vacated the defense verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.