Empirical Study On Cases Of Transfusion Infection Tort Liability

The implementation of Tort Liability Law has ended the dualistic liability system for medical damage and unified the legal application of the liability for transfusion infection damage.However,Article 59 stipulates the same rules for judging unqualified blood injury and medical product damage,which leads to different opinions on whether the strict liability of products is applicable to infringement liability of blood transfusion infection.Through the empirical analysis of 109 effective judgments related to blood injury after the implementation of the Tort Liability Law on the China Judicial Documents Network,it shows that there are mainly two differences in such cases in judicial trials.One is whether the strict liability principle is applicable to the infringement liability of blood transfusion infection,and the other is how to distribute the burden of proof in such cases.Judging from the principle of imputation,the application of strict liability for transfusion infection is in line with the provisions of the current law of our country,and the application of strict liability is the best way to solve the problem of transfusion infection without fault in our country,which has legitimacy.Judging from the responsibility of blood certification in the rules of evidence,according to the provisions of Article 7,paragraph 3,of the Judicial Interpretation of Medical Damage,the burden of proof should be borne by the medical institution and the blood supply agency.As for the proof of causation,it is not advisable to simply let either party bear the burden of proof of causation completely.The burden of proof of causation of patients should be reduced properly on the basis of balancing the interests of both doctors and patients.