Since positive detection of HIV is beyond the scope of existing medical technology, courts and legislators must decide liability parameters. The theory of strict liability in tort, or so-called product liability, is not viable for blood and blood products, since blood is considered a medical service and not a product in all States but New Jersey and Vermont. With regard to refusal to treat, there is generally no requirement for physicians to accept new patients, and routine patient referral is not in itself prohibited. The authority for refusal to treat, and any resulting discrimination claims, will be based on applicable medical society codes, municipal ordinances, State antidiscrimination laws, public accommodation laws, and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Actions by individuals who have become infected with HIV through sexual contact are becoming a major area of litigation. The lack of a sufficient number of cases addressing the issue of HIV sexual transmission liability requires a review of statutes and case law involving other types of sexually-transmitted diseases. It is pointed out that many State statutes render the transmission of HIV a crime. Statutes, laws, and cases relevant to blood liability, refusal to treat, business practices, discrimination, family law, government cases, and insurance are reviewed.