Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Texas passed a "tort reform" law taking effect on September 1, 2003. [43] The act limited non-economic damages (e.g., damages for pain and suffering) in most malpractice cases to $250,000 across all healthcare providers and $250,000 for healthcare facilities, with a limit of two facilities per claim.
In common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless (or, in Australia, negligently [1]) and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.
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]
A Texas law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion, constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violates the Constitution.
In tort law, there are generally five areas in which transferred intent is applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Generally, any intent to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the ...
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.
Relying on the definition of battery from the Restatement of Torts, the Court held that battery could only be found if it is shown that the boy knew with "substantial certainty" that after the chair was moved Garratt would attempt to sit in the chair's original position. That is, the accused must be substantially certain that his action would ...