In Silverhart v. Mount Zion Hospital (1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 1022, a surgical needle broke off during a procedure and injured the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal determined that the hospital could not be strictly liable for the defective needle because the hospital was not in the business of providing a service (healthcare) not a product (the needle). The court determined that the process of manufacturing and distribution ended when defendant bought the needle. (Silverhart, supra, 20 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1027.) Upon a second polling of the jury, a vote of 10 to 2 in favor of the verdict was found. Plaintiff attempted to impeach the verdict with a declaration by one juror that three-fourths of the jurors were not in agreement with the verdict when they were called in to announce a verdict. In rejecting this declaration as inadmissible impeaching evidence, the court stated: ". . . In the present case the juror's declaration was inadmissible because it showed only her mental processes and those of her fellow jurors, and the subjective considerations which influenced her verdicts. Citations omitted. The subject declaration by only one juror purports to impeach the mental processes of her fellow jurors by the unsupported conclusionary statements that 'In truth, three-fourths of such jurors at that time were not in agreement as to a verdict in this action' . . . . As already pointed out, the circumstances surrounding the return of the verdict are devoid of any coercion." In Silverhart v. Mount Zion Hospital, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d 1022, the court noted at page 1029: "In considering plaintiff's contention, we first observe that no objection was made by plaintiff's counsel to the polling procedure at the time the jury was polled, nor did her counsel suggest that the jury be sent out again on the ground that more than one-fourth of the jurors disagreed with the verdict as returned. If plaintiff's counsel was not satisfied with the polling procedure, or if he believed that the jury was still confused, he should have complained immediately. Since any impropriety could have been cured if raised on time, the failure to object amounted to a waiver of the alleged impropriety or error. . . ."