论输血感染的侵权责任

发布时间：2018-05-16 17:06

本文选题：输血感染 + 侵权责任　；参考：《黑龙江大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：医学临床上通过输血使患者免于死亡,但同时也引发了不良影响。每年因为输血而感染梅毒、丙肝、艾滋病的侵权损害赔偿案件不占少数。但是,我国对于血液的界定范围并不明确,关于血液是否为产品这一问题,在学界一直存在着争议,而我国法律并未通过成文法的形式对输血所用血液是否为产品做出明确的规定。另外输血感染的侵权责任归责原则以及举证责任的问题也存在争议。虽然《侵权责任法》关于输入不合格血液造成损害规定为无过错责任,但是从司法实践的案例来看,大多适用的依旧依照过错责任原则以及公平责任。另外,根据法律规定以及司法判例,血站最终也可能对受血者承担赔偿责任,但是血站既不是医疗合同的相对人,也不是造成侵权损害的责任主体,那么血站最终承担赔偿责任的性质是什么呢?本文旨在通过我国在司法实践上的两个判例,来分析我国在输血感染引发的侵权方面存在的问题。本文主要分为五个部分:一、问题的提出,通过引入两则司法案例,来提出现今我国输血感染引发的侵权问题中存在的问题。二、输血感染的侵权责任归责分析。首先对于血液是否为产品的问题进行了分析,随后对输血感染引发侵权适用过错责任原则、无过错责任原则、还是公平分担责任的公平责任进行了详尽的分析。三、输血感染侵权中因果关系以及医疗过失的判定。分析更适合输血感染案件的因果关系理论以及举证责任的分配,同时探讨了医疗机构以及血站的过失判断标准。四、血站承担责任的性质。通过法学理论的分析,验证血站承担责任的合理性。五、针对当前我国关于输血感染侵权责任中存在的问题,提出几条粗略的对策。上世纪我们的邻国日本因为输入不合格血液以及使用不合格血液引发了多起群体诉讼,当时日本成功的解决这些诉讼的经验可以给我们一些启发。所以本篇论文中笔者在基于本国法讨论的基础上,引入了相关日本法以及法学界的一些理论、法规、以及判例加以探讨,以便参考其有价值的部分,得出更加合理结论。
[Abstract]:Clinically, blood transfusions have saved patients from death, but have also caused adverse effects. Syphilis, hepatitis C and AIDS are infected with blood transfusions every year. However, the definition of blood in China is not clear. There has always been controversy in academic circles about whether blood is a product. But our country law does not make the explicit stipulation through the written law form whether the blood which the transfusion uses is the product. In addition, the principle of tort liability and the burden of proof of transfusion infection are also controversial. Although the Tort liability Law stipulates that the damage caused by the import of unqualified blood is no-fault liability, most of the cases are still applied according to the principle of fault liability and fair liability. In addition, according to legal provisions and judicial precedents, blood stations may eventually be liable for compensation to the blood recipients. However, the blood stations are neither the counterpart of the medical contract nor the subject responsible for causing tort damage. So what is the nature of the blood station's ultimate liability? The purpose of this paper is to analyze the problems in tort caused by transfusion infection through two precedents in judicial practice in our country. This paper is mainly divided into five parts: first, through the introduction of two judicial cases, this paper points out the problems existing in the tort caused by transfusion infection in our country. Second, the analysis of tort liability of transfusion infection. First of all, the problem of whether blood is a product is analyzed, and then the principle of fault liability, the principle of no-fault liability, or the fair liability of fair sharing of liability are analyzed in detail. Third, the causality and the judgment of medical negligence in the infringement of transfusion infection. The theory of causality and the distribution of burden of proof are analyzed, and the criteria of fault judgment in medical institutions and blood stations are discussed. Fourth, the nature of the blood station's responsibility. Through the analysis of the theory of law, the rationality of the blood station to bear the responsibility is verified. Fifthly, in view of the problems existing in the tort liability of transfusion infection in our country, some rough countermeasures are put forward. Japan, our neighbour in the last century, caused a number of group lawsuits for importing and using substandard blood, and Japan's experience in successfully resolving these lawsuits could give us some inspiration. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion of the domestic law, the author introduces some theories, laws and precedents of Japanese law and legal circles to discuss them, in order to draw a more reasonable conclusion with reference to their valuable parts.
【学位授予单位】：黑龙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】