This Article  • References  • 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?

Andrew Gettinger, MD
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Hanover, NH

JAMA. 1987;257(6):779.

	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 recent update by Rabkin and Rabkin¹ on individual and institutional liability for transfusion-acquired diseases is a welcome communication to clinicians who routinely administer blood products. I am concerned that the review may not completely reflect the current legal status of transfusion in New Hampshire, however. In 1971, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law (Strict Liability and Implied Warranties Limited, NH RSA 507:8-b) eliminating the concept of strict liability in tort and implied warranty in relation to the procurement, furnishing, donation, processing, distributing, or use of blood products. The statute specifically states that individuals or corporations are not liable for damages except those caused by negligence. This statute was still in effect as recently as the 1985 cumulative supplement. It is important for physicians practicing in New Hampshire to be aware that interpretation of 402A of the Restatement of Torts, Second, and the application of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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