Abstract
Background and Objectives
After the transmission of AIDS and hepatitis to some hemophilic patient’s due to infected blood transfusions, the issue of civil liability of the state caused by the supply of blood contaminated in our legal system was seriously raised. The lawyers have mentioned several bases for the civil liability of the state (blood transfusion organization), including the basis of fault, strict liability (breach of safety obligation), equipment defect, and the basis for the not-harm. The purpose of this article is to describe the opposability as the basis for the state's liability in this field.
 
Materials and Methods
The research method in this paper is an analytical and descriptive method based on the analysis of legal provisions and the views of lawyers and jurists.
 
Results
The findings of this paper indicate that in the Shiiet jurisprudence, the Etlaf, Tasbib and Ghoror rules have been used to prove the state's responsibility for the supply of contaminated blood, which the Tasbib rule is more in harmony with this issue. In Iranian law, many lawyers have also tried to analyze this responsibility on the basis of strict liability.
 
Conclusions 
The theory of opposability as one of the theories expressed in the basis of civil responsibility, which relies on Shiite jurisprudence, can well justify the responsibility of the state for supply of contaminated blood, without the need to prove the fault or to be liable to the strict liability that is not acceptable in our legal system.