Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital, 1 A.3d 823 (2010), is a New Jersey legal case concerning whether a hospital may unilaterally refuse care to a patient on the grounds that it is futile to prolong the person's life because there is little chance that the condition will improve.
State v. Abbott, 36 N.J. 63, 174 A.2d 881 (1961), [1] is a landmark case in the American legal doctrine of retreat.In it, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously adopted a duty to retreat—a legal requirement that a threatened person cannot stand one's ground and apply lethal force in self-defense, but must instead retreat to a place of safety. [2]
The common law position regarding negligence recognised strict categories of negligence. In 1932, the duty of a care applied despite no prior relationship or interaction and was not constrained by privity of contract. [2] Here, a duty of care was found to be owed by a manufacturer to an end consumer, for negligence in the production of his goods.
The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise) but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law). Duty of care may be considered a formalisation of the social contract, the established and implicit ...
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. McDonald's coffee case: An American court case that became a cause célèbre for advocates of ...
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division (in case citation, N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div) is the intermediate appellate court in New Jersey. "The Appellate Division of New Jersey's Superior Court is the first level appellate court, with appellate review authority over final judgments of the trial divisions and the Tax Court and over final decisions and actions of State administrative ...
Eisner, a Delaware Supreme Court decision from 2000, [4] the Court found that the Business Judgment Rule shielded the Board, which the Court found to have exercised bad business judgment, since it essentially complied with the Van Gorkom procedural requirement of informing themselves via an expert before approving the severance package. Thus ...
Chapman v Hearse is a significant case in common law related to duty of care, reasonable foreseeability and novus actus interveniens within the tort of negligence.The case concerned three parties; Chapman who drove negligently, Dr Cherry who assisted him on the side of the road, and Hearse who, in driving negligently, killed Dr Cherry while he was assisting Chapman.