About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (April 2017 through August 2017)

handle is hein.ali/restt5024 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY TOPIC 1. BASIC RULES OF COMPARATIVE RESPONSIBILITY § 7. Effect of Plaintiff's Negligence When Plaintiff Suffers an Indivisible Injury Ky.App.2015. Cit. in sup.; com. (m) quot. in case quot. in sup.; Rptr's Note cit. in case quot. in sup. Family and estate of patient who fell approximately 30 feet while trimming trees at his home and suffered a brain injury brought wrongful-death and medical-malpractice claims against physicians after patient went into cardiac arrest and died in the emergency room, alleging that defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat patient's aortic injuries. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for physicians. While affirming, this court held that the trial court properly excluded the expert testimony of physicians' accident reconstructionist, reasoning that any alleged negligence by patient was irrelevant, because the issue was not how or why patient was injured, but whether, once he arrived at the emergency room, physicians utilized the required standard of care in his diagnosis and treatment. The court explained that, under Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 7, a healthcare provider could not reduce or avoid liability for negligent treatment by asserting that the patient's injuries were originally caused by the patient's own negligence. Pauly v. Chang, 498 S.W.3d 394, 417. Ohio App.2016. Com. (m) quot. in sup. Patient's father, individually and on behalf of patient's estate, brought a wrongful-death action against, among others, trauma surgeon and hospital, alleging that defendants negligently failed to treat a subdural hematoma that patient developed as a result of a car accident. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for plaintiff. Affirming, this court held, inter alia, that the trial court did not err in preventing defendants from presenting evidence that patient caused the accident as a result of his own alcohol intoxication in support of their defense that patient's negligence in drinking and driving proximately caused his death. The court explained that, under Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 7, in a case involving negligent rendition of medical services, a factfinder did not consider any conduct by the plaintiff that created the condition the services were employed to remedy. Whitmer v. Zochowski, 69 N.E.3d 17, 46. TOPIC 2. LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS FOR INDIVISIBLE HARM § 13. Vicarious Liability Colo.App.2016. Quot. in sup.; com. (c) quot. in sup. Consulting firm that was hired to act as agent for a company in seeking a buyer for the company sued the company's president, alleging that defendant failed to disclose a pending buyer in order to induce plaintiff to terminate its commission agreement with the company shortly before the sale closed. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for plaintiff. While vacating and remanding on other grounds, this court held that the trial court did not err in declining to instruct the jury on apportioning liability to the company as a nonparty at fault pursuant to a state statute. The court noted that plaintiff s fraud claim against the company was based only on its For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.