Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Donoghue v. Stevenson: A formative House of Lords case. Caparo v. Dickman: 3 Tests for duty of care is whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant; and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty. House of Lords case.
A plaintiff must establish all five elements of the tort of negligence for a successful medical malpractice claim. [11] A duty was owed: a legal duty exists whenever a hospital or health care provider undertakes care or treatment of a patient. A duty was breached: the provider failed to conform to the relevant standard care.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a ...
Ybarra v. Spangard [1] was a leading case in California discussing the exclusive control element of res ipsa loquitur. "Where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of ...
Decided November 17, 1948; Full case name: Charles A. Summers v. Howard W. Tice, et al. Citation(s) 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1: Holding; When a plaintiff suffers a single indivisible injury, for which the negligence of each of several potential tortfeasors could have been a but-for cause, but only one of which could have actually been the cause, all the potential tortfeasors are jointly and ...
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable ...
Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning what constitutes a claim "arising out of" an assault or battery within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Supreme Court held that the FTCA's intentional tort exception did not apply.
Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955) is an American tort law case that illustrates the principle of "intent" for intentional torts. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Background