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?

Herbert F. Polesky, MD; Susan L. Lentz, JD
Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis

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.—

In a recent COMMENTARY, entitled "Individual and Institutional Liability for Transfusion-Acquired Diseases,"¹ the authors correctly include Minnesota as one of five states without a statute classifying provision of blood as a service. However, the authors err in stating that "the issue of blood bank liability has simply not arisen in the published opinions of... Minnesota." In a 1965 decision, Balkowitsch v Minneapolis War Memorial Blood Bank,² the Supreme Court of Minnesota considered and resolved this issue. In holding that the relationship between the blood bank and the recipient was sui generis, the Minnesota court aligned itself with the vast majority of jurisdictions that have declined to impose strict liability for transfusion.

The Balkowitsch plaintiff, who developed hepatitis following transfusion, claimed a breach of implied warranty under a contractual sales-act theory as well as strict liability in tort. The court rejected both of these theories. In . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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