that risk-utility analysis is to be utilized by the court to determine whether liability is to be precluded as a matter of law. Judge Conford did not say the court should or could also decide that there was liability as a matter of law. My research has disclosed no case where liability was imposed, utilizing the risk-utility analysis, as a matter of law for an accident ascribable to a product in the absence of a defect (manufacturing flaw, available alternative, or inadequate warning) other than in the absolute liability context. This Court has sometimes held as a matter of public policy that the cause should not be submitted to the jury because the utility of the product outweighed the risks. Illustrative situations are cases such as Brody v. Overlook Hospital, 66 N.J. 448 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Baptista v. St. Barnabas Medical Center, 109
holding that a hospital cannot be strictly liable under texas law for a defective catheter because a hospital is not a seller engaged in the business of selling the product holding that a company providing administrative purchasing and financial services to a hospital was not a hospital and thus could not be held directly liable under emtala holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital holding that a hospital was not vicariously liable for sexual abuse by an orderly holding as a matter of policy hospital not liable for blood used in transfusion that was infected with hepatitis