ILCS » Chapter 745 · Act 40
Illinois Compiled Statutes

745 ILCS 40/2 (2026)

Limitation of liability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(745 ILCS 40/2) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5102)
    Sec. 2. Limitation of liability. The procuring, furnishing, donating, processing, distributing or using human whole blood, plasma, blood products, blood derivatives and products, corneas, bones, or organs or other human tissue for the purpose of injecting, transfusing or transplanting any of them in the human body is declared for purposes of liability in tort or contract to be the rendition of a service by every person, firm or corporation participating therein, whether or not any remuneration is paid therefor, and is declared not to be a sale of any such items and no warranties of any kind or description nor strict tort liability shall be applicable thereto, except as provided in Section 3.
(Source: P.A. 77-184.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1995–2003 · leading case: Brandt v. Boston Sci. Corp., 792 N.E.2d 296 (Ill. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brandt v. Boston Sci. Corp., 792 N.E.2d 296 (Ill. 2003). · cites it 2× “745 ILCS 40/2 (West 2000). Our appellate court is split in its interpretation of the effect of this legislation.”
Brandt v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr., 771 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “182 (now 745 ILCS 40/2 (West 1998))). While Garcia does provide support for plaintiff's argument, it is a First District decision, which we are not compelled to follow.”
Advincula v. United Blood Servs., 654 N.E.2d 644 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “) The law recognizes the benefits to be derived from scientific knowledge, materials, and skills for using blood and blood products in fostering the public policy to promote the health and welfare of the people of Illinois.”
Brandt v. Boston Sci. Corp. (Ill. 2003). · cites it 2× “745 ILCS 40/2 (West 2000). Our appellate court is split in its interpretation of the effect of this legislation.”
Brandt v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr. (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “182 (now 745 ILCS 40/2 (West 1998))). While Garcia does provide support for plaintiff's argument, it is a First District decision, which we are not compelled to follow.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.