Liability for Transfusion-Acquired Disease

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