In conclusion, this writer respectfully disagrees with the application of Section 402A to blood cases (assuming our present facts) and believes that blood should properly be considered an unavoidably unsafe product. Professor James agrees with this position when the defect or possibility of injury from an "unavoidably unsafe product," could not be detected prior to use of the product and occurrence of the injury. This point is strengthened, he continues, when the product is "socially desirable to put it out in spite of the inevitable risk." In other words, the decision in Cunningham could be sound only if the court meant to make the defendant hospital reply to plaintiff's action and escape liability by a showing of reasonable care by the blood supplier in selection of healthy donors and by the hospital in requiring such standards.
Oldham, Peter D.
"Strict Product Liability - Blood as an Unavoidably Unsafe Product; Cunningham v. MacNeal Memorial Hospital,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 4
, Article 4.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol4/iss2/4