Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
McDonald's coffee case: An American court case that became a cause célèbre for advocates of tort reform. A 79-year-old woman received third degree burns from spilled coffee purchased from the restaurant chain and sued to recover her costs.
In common law jurisdictions, medical malpractice liability is normally based on the tort of negligence. [3]Although the law of medical malpractice differs significantly between nations, as a broad general rule liability follows when a health care practitioner does not show a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill when providing medical care to a patient. [3]
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that debt arising from a medical malpractice judgment, attributable to negligent or reckless conduct is dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code. [1]
Although federal courts often hear tort cases arising out of common law or state statutes, there are relatively few tort claims that arise exclusively as a result of federal law. The most common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue ...
Jackson Women's Health Organization: 19-1392: 2022-06-24 The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Becerra v. Empire Health ...
medical professionals: a medical malpractice claim may be brought against a doctor or other healthcare provider who fails to exercise the degree of care and skill that a similarly situated professional of the same medical specialty would provide under the circumstances.
Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1996] 4 All ER 771 is an important English tort law case, on the standard of care required by medical specialists. It follows the Bolam test for professional negligence, and addresses the interaction with the concept of causation.