claims. The question for the Court is, therefore, whether the Plaintiffs’ claims against The Brigham have a “reasonable basis in law and fact.” Badon, 236 F.3d at 286. a. Claim Against The Brigham for Breach of Warranty In Massachusetts, there is no strict liability cause of action for a defective product. Commonwealth v. Johnson Insulation, 425 Mass. 650, 682 N.E.2d 1323, 1326 (1997). Such a claim must be brought as a claim for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness for a particular purpose under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 2-314 and 2-315, or of an express warranty under § 2-313. Id. Such claims must arise out of “transactions in goods” and not the provision of services. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-102. The br L 1225358, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 19, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Pleasant v. Dow Coming Corp., No.
holding that despite a jury verdict against the insured hospital for medical malpractice liability was not beyond dispute holding that the hospital was fraudulently joined because it did not meet the definition of seller as defined by mississippis product liability statute or under the uniform commercial code holding that a hospital had not been fraudulently joined because there was no definitive ruling from any oregon appellate court foreclosing a strict liability claim against a hospital holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed holding that the hospital was fraudulently joined because hospitals are not sellers of medical devices and therefore there was no basis in illinois law to support the plaintiffs claims for strict liability and breach of implied warranty against the hospital