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.
Fletcher v. Rylands: Early leading case on strict liability doctrine. (Exchequer Chamber, 1866) L.R. 1. Ex. 265. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976): A case in which a patient told his psychiatrist that he had thoughts of killing a girl. Later he did kill the girl.
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 ...
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 ...
Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories: Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort.
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 ...
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
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.