How have courts interpreted the doctrine of strict products liability in medical malpractice cases?

While we do not agree with everything in Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital (1954) 308 N.Y. 100, 123 N.E.2d 792 (a suit against a hospital for furnishing blood in which jaundice-producing agents were found), we think the following quotation is apposite here: 'The art of healing frequently calls for a balancing of risks and dangers to a patient. Consequently, if injury results from the course adopted, where no negligence or fault is present, liability should not be imposed upon (one) seeking to save or otherwise assist the patient.' (308 N.Y. at p. 107, 123 N.E.2d at p. 795.) We, therefore, hold it inappropriate to impose liability without fault upon a medical doctor who prescribes a prescription drug as a medicine of his choice by applying the doctrine of strict products' liability merely because ingestion of the drug produced untoward results.

[17 Cal.App.3d 980]