This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Sanford A. Mullen, MD
Jacksonville, Fla

JAMA. 1970;213(3):467.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor:—

The LAW AND MEDICINE article, "Liability for Transfusion Hepatitis" (211:1431, 1970), contains several statements which may be misleading to those concerned with blood banking. The article states that the Supreme Court of New Jersey held the hospital and the blood bank liable for breach of warranties of sale in Jackson vs Muhlenberg Hospital (232 A 2d 882). This citation is actually to the decision of the trial court, which refused to apply strict liability. The supreme court decision (249 A 2d 65) did not hold that warranty liability should apply to the provision of blood. The supreme court merely held that the trial court decided this issue prematurely, and the case was remanded for trial. The court said that, "At the trial, a complete record should be made, including not only detailed testimony as to the nature of the defendant's operations, but also expert testimony as . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?