NCJ Number
115482
Journal
Trial Volume: 25 Issue: 2 Dated: (February 1989) Pages: 96-98
Date Published
1989
Length
3 pages
Annotation
Although blood shield statutes in 48 States define blood as a necessary service rather than as a product subject to the law of strict liability, a San Francisco jury has recently used negligence theory to return a verdict holding a blood bank liable for a transfusion resulting in the transmission of AIDS.
Abstract
The Superior Court jury decided nine to three that Irwin Memorial Blood Bank negligently handled blood it provided to 3-week-old Michael Osborn during open-heart surgery on February 24, 1983. The blood bank had turned down an offer by the Osborn family to have family and friends donate the blood. Osborn now has an AIDS-related brain tumor, his right side is paralyzed, and he is not expected to live long. Despite this verdict, the executive director of the American Association of Blood Banks said that he does not believe a trend has been established in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the liability of blood and blood-products suppliers promises to be a major area of litigation. The blood shield laws were enacted in the 1960's and 1970's to protect blood suppliers from liability for the transmission of hepatitis. The laws deem the provision of blood to be a service rather than a sale and therefore shield the manufacturers from strict liability claims.