华中科技大学学报（社会科学版）
華中科技大學學報（社會科學版）
화중과기대학학보（사회과학판）
Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition)
2015年
5期
45-53
,共9页
输血致害%过错责任%公平责任%无过错责任
輸血緻害%過錯責任%公平責任%無過錯責任
수혈치해%과착책임%공평책임%무과착책임
blood transfusion%fault liability%quality liability%no fault liability
《侵权责任法》第59条对输入不合格血液致害的规定，与其他医疗产品致害完全一致，该规定导致学界对输血致害责任归责原则产生了无过错责任说和过错责任说两种观点的分野。基于对《侵权责任法》实施前的106个标本案例及实施后的40个标本案例的分析，无论是《侵权责任法》实施前还是实施后，过错责任原则在该领域一直占有主导地位，公平责任占有一定比例，无过错责任占有较小比例。即便明确第59条为无过错责任的案例，对血液是否合格的判断也依据被告行为是否违反规定，与过错责任无异。产品责任之无过错责任在输血致害领域的劣势，及判定血液是否合格之依据的回归，不仅使无过错责任徒有虚名，也使定位第59条为过错责任具有正当性。
《侵權責任法》第59條對輸入不閤格血液緻害的規定，與其他醫療產品緻害完全一緻，該規定導緻學界對輸血緻害責任歸責原則產生瞭無過錯責任說和過錯責任說兩種觀點的分野。基于對《侵權責任法》實施前的106箇標本案例及實施後的40箇標本案例的分析，無論是《侵權責任法》實施前還是實施後，過錯責任原則在該領域一直佔有主導地位，公平責任佔有一定比例，無過錯責任佔有較小比例。即便明確第59條為無過錯責任的案例，對血液是否閤格的判斷也依據被告行為是否違反規定，與過錯責任無異。產品責任之無過錯責任在輸血緻害領域的劣勢，及判定血液是否閤格之依據的迴歸，不僅使無過錯責任徒有虛名，也使定位第59條為過錯責任具有正噹性。
《침권책임법》제59조대수입불합격혈액치해적규정，여기타의료산품치해완전일치，해규정도치학계대수혈치해책임귀책원칙산생료무과착책임설화과착책임설량충관점적분야。기우대《침권책임법》실시전적106개표본안례급실시후적40개표본안례적분석，무론시《침권책임법》실시전환시실시후，과착책임원칙재해영역일직점유주도지위，공평책임점유일정비례，무과착책임점유교소비례。즉편명학제59조위무과착책임적안례，대혈액시부합격적판단야의거피고행위시부위반규정，여과착책임무이。산품책임지무과착책임재수혈치해영역적열세，급판정혈액시부합격지의거적회귀，불부사무과착책임도유허명，야사정위제59조위과착책임구유정당성。
Article 59 of “Tort Liability Act” on non-standard blood transfusion has the same structure with other medical product’ s causing damage, which makes scholar hold two different doctrines:no fault lia-bility and fault liability.Based on 106 cases before implementation of“Tort Liability Act” and 40 cases after implementation of “Tort Liability Act”, fault liability principle is always the main principle in this area no matter before or after implementation of “Tort Liability Act”, and equality principle takes specific percentage and only a few cases take no fault liability.The case which confirms the imputation principle of Article 59 as no fault liability is based on the action of defendants to judge whether the blood is standard.This makes it the same as fault liability.The disadvantages of the no fault liability in blood transfusion area and the standard used to judge whether the blood is standard not only makes the no fault liability meaningless, but also makes Article 59 as fault liability reasonably.
