More handpicked essays just for you.
Elements of strict products liability
Products liability explosives essay
Products liability explosives essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In 1992 the Plaintiff/Appellant, Albert Cafazzo, was suing Defendants/Appellees, Dr. Normal Stern and a hospital, for strict products liability. He contends the Defendants are responsible for an implanted medical device that failed six years after his surgery.
2. The issue presented to the court was can a hospital and a physician be held subject to strict product liability under the Restatement of Torts (Second) Section 402A, for defects in a product related to the provision of medical services? This section provides in part as follows: (1.) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a.) the seller is engaged in
…show more content…
This section states that a seller can be held liable if the seller is in the business of selling products. The Appeals Court goes on to state that like movie theaters who sell popcorn and soda at concession stands they are not in the business of selling food. They sell movies. Similarly, doctors and hospitals are not in the business of selling products. They perform medical procedures that use medical products. Thomas v. St. Joseph Hospital, 618 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981) supports the application of 402A … is not medical services or products connected with diagnosis and treatment, but rather materials related to mechanical or administrative functions. i.e. hospital gowns.” This case law clearly states that Section 402A does not apply to medical services or products
In the case of Michael T. Vandall, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant v. Trinity Hospitals, a corporation, and Margaret C. Nordell, M.D., the issue is about retaliatory discharge. It deals with problems with Trinity Hospital in North Dakota, Dr. Margaret Nordell and Dr. Michael Vandall, both physicians working in the OB-GYN department.
In the plaintiff’s suit, he alleged the surgery did not go well because the hospital had hired a surgeon, who was not competent or qualified enough to perform the surgery therefore; the hospital was just as negligent as the doctor was. Before the trial date, Dr. Salinsky and his insurance company, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, settled with plantiff out of court on the basis they will be released from the suit upon payment of $140,000 (Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital). Although, Salinsky settled with plaintiff prior to trial, there was still “question of whether he was negligent in the manner in which he performed the operation on July 11, 1975, remained an issue at trial, as it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that Salinsky was negligent in this respect to establish a
Nursefinders argues that the causes of action based on respondent superior liability failed because Drummond was a special employee of Kaiser or acted outside the course and scope of her employment. they also asserted that no triable issues listed on Montague’s negligence claim and the lack of cable cause of action precluded a derivative loss of consortium claim.
Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction are the poor-quality patient care that Tomcik received and Tomcik’s health being at risk. Once engaged in a doctor-patient relationship, physicians are obligated to provide the best possible care for the patient by utilizing their skills and knowledge as expected from a competent physician under the same or similar conditions (“What Is a Doctor’s Duty of Care?” n.d.). However, in Tomcik’s situation, Dr. Evans did not deliver high-quality care, for he administered a perfunctory breast examination and thus did not follow standard protocols. There is evidence of indifference conveyed by Dr. Evans, and the lack of proper care towards Tomcik is an issue that can be scrutinized and judged appropriately. Additionally, Tomcik’s health was at risk due to the failure of a proper physical evaluation and the incredibly long delay in diagnosis and treatment. The negligence from Dr. Evans, along with the lack of medical attention sought out by Tomcik after she had first discovered the lump in her breast, may contribute to Tomcik’s life being in danger as well as the emotional anguish she may have felt during that time period. Overall, the incident of Tomcik’s expectations from the original physician and other employees at the institution not being met is an ethical issue that should be dealt with
In the summer of 2003, Gary Shephard learned that he needed to have surgery on his left knee. In accordance with the requirements of his insurance plan, Mr. Shephard obtained prior approval for the surgery from Blue Cross/Blue Shield and made plans to have the surgery on or about August 5, 2003. On August 1, 2003, a few days before his scheduled surgery, Mr. Shephard was laid off due to lack of work. (Shephard v. O'Quinn Case No. 3:05-CV-79, 2013) Defendant John O'Quinn, Gary Shephard’s boss, told him that the layoff would be temporary and that his insurance coverage was paid for one month after his layoff. Therefore, Mr. O'Quinn assured Mr. Shephard that his health insurance would still be effective the following week when he had knee surgery.
Showalter, J. S. (2007). Southwick’s the law of hospital & health care administration, 5th ed.
Calisi (Plaintiff) developed lymphoma after taking the product manufactured by Abbott Laboratories (Defendant). Plaintiff took an arthritis medication for approximately four years, and brought a lawsuit against Defendant for the illness that he incurred after taking the medication. The lawsuit was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the District of Massachusetts “for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.” Additionally, the claim brought against the Defendant included negligence because the Defendant failed to warn the Plaintiff of the risk of developing lymphoma from taking the medication.
Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Failed Medical / Physical / Procurement Standards / AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-11 / JFW / RE-3 / Uncharacterized
The plaintiff sued for malpractice charging that the emergency room physician was negligent because he did not use an opthalmoscope nor did an
In this essay about tort law, I talked about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do this, I provided a background of the event, applied facts of the case to applicable law, summarized lessons of the week as they related to this case, and provided a plausible argument for the parties involved. This is a prime example of a breach of a tort law, and the case is currently in the process of litigation. It is likely that the parties involved will reach an agreement out of court, but may in fact be brought to trial. References Cross, F. B., & Miller, R. L. (2012).
Love hired an attorney, Holmes to present her. Holmes agreed on condition that Love would refrain herself from abusing controlled substance. Holmes then ended the professional relationship a few months later. Love then alleged that Holmes was bought off on her twitter. The issue is whether Love is liable to her attorney.
As this case study is evaluated we look at who is involved. This case involves a 44 year old patient this is the plaintiff in this case. The issue began when the patient noticed bumps on his wrist; one may think that this
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
The statute of limitation refers to the length of time in which a plaintiff can file a claim. The principle behind statute of limitation is that lawsuits cannot be improved as time passes by. For one, clear details of the facts can be blurred as memories can fade and witnesses may die, go away, or lose interest of the case. Ideally, court prefers to settle the case as soon as disputes develop (Warner, 2010). However, for professional and product liabilities, with injuries may take time to manifest, many courts adapted different rules such as postponing the running of the statute until the injury has been reasonably discovered. The length of time differs among states and branches of law (Danzon, 1985). The long and deferred statutes of limitations lead to long tail of claims and contributed majority of medical malpractice and product liability (Danzon, 1985). In this section, statutes of limitations for medical malpractice in two states are compared.
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.