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?

JAMA. 1970;214(3):461-472.

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

Court applies tort liability rule to transfusions

Illinois blood bankers and hospital administrators were aghast at a recent decision of the State Supreme Court making them liable for any untoward results of blood transfusions, especially hepatitis.

In a landmark decision, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of a state appellate court last year by applying the concept of "strict tort liability" to blood transfusions. (JAMAMEDICAL NEWS210:2002 [Dec 15] 1969.)

Under these provisions, a person suing a hospital or blood bank would theoretically need to prove only that his case of hepatitis or other disease resulted from a transfused unit of blood. He would no longer have to establish that the institution was negligent in order to win the case.

Although strict tort liability already covers drugs, the Illinois decision in the case of Cunningham vs. MacNeal Memorial Hospital represents one of the first times that a . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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