论文部分内容阅读
目次一、美国各州判决介绍二、美国法院判决之误区三、对我国的启示一、美国各州判决介绍自20世纪60年代以来,美国大部分州陆续制定了血液保护法(blood shield statue),规定输血感染免于严格责任,其中许多州将输血定性为服务,而不是买卖,因为输血感染病毒的受害人不能提起严格责任之诉。明尼苏达州、新泽西州和哥伦比亚特区虽未制定血液保护法,但其法院拒绝在血液供应者(blood distributors)未有过错时课之以责任。~([1])有美国学者
Table of Contents I. Introduction of Judgment in U.S. States 2. Misunderstandings of Judgment in U.S. Court III. Inspirations to Our Country I. Judgment in U.S. States Introduction Since the 1960s, most states in the United States have successively enacted blood shield statutes, Blood transfusions are exempt from strict liability, many of which characterize transfusions as services, not trades, because victims of transfusion-transmitted viruses can not claim strict liability. Although Minnesota, New Jersey and the District of Columbia did not enact blood-protection laws, their courts refused to take responsibility for the absence of blood distributors. ~ ([1]) American scholar