Abstract
<h3>To the Editor.—</h3> The recent update by Rabkin and Rabkin<sup>1</sup>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
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
