This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: I. EXAMPLE OF A TORT SUIT/TORT LAW IN CONTEXT • Tort=wrong or trespass • When the law recognizes misconduct as a tort, it entitles the V to invoke the legal system to respond to the wrong • To commit a tort is to act in a manner that is wrongful toward and injurious to another • Refers to the collection of recognized legal claims that enable a person (or entity) to obtain redress from another on the ground that he (or it) has suffered injury by virtue of having been wronged by that other • Tort law=rules and principles that define right conduct, circumstances under which a victim can obtain redress, and the form that such redress may take • Tort law articulates legal responsibilities or duties that persons owe to one another, and provides V of conduct breaching those duties with redress against those who have wronged them • Only one way among many to answer qs about responsibility (ex. there was a separate investigation of Lovin’s act, which led to a consent agreement) o Tort system compensates in a way that an administration agency may not (they sanction or regulate) • Primary purpose of tort law to spread the cost of accidents CASE: Walter v. Wal-Mart (Me. 2000) Jury awarded Walter $550,000 for her claim of pharmacist malpractice after she was given the wrong cancer medication After the 2-day trial, both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law o W-M on the ground that P had failed to present expert testimony on the standard of care by pharmacists; motion denied (where professional negligence and its harmful results are sufficiently obvious so as to lie within common knowledge, no expert testimony is necessary) o Walter’s motion was granted; concluded that she was entitled to judgment on liability Wal-Mart was negligent: Walter had the burden to prove that WM owed a duty of care to her that it had breached, thereby causing her harm o Pharmacist’s testimony established the standard of care was breached: Admitted he had made an error by confusing names, that his serious error did not satisfy the proper standard of care for a pharmacist, would have discovered the error if he had followed the counseling procedures Causation: there must be some reasonable connection between the act or omission of the ∆ and the damage that the Π suffered o Uncontroverted medical evidence that the drug caused damage to her body W-M claims Walter was comparatively negligent in not noticing that the drugs were different and did not contact her physician immediately after symptoms began o (1) Walter had never taken the medication before and so had no reason to know they were incorrect; (2) jury was, however, permitted to reduce her 1 award for “failing to mitigate” by calling her doctor • WM being sued through theory of respondeat superior o Employer may be held vicariously liable for wrongful acts of its employees committed within the scope of their employment o Adds another entity to the roster of potentially responsible parties, not...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/09/2008 for the course LAW TORTS taught by Professor Sebok during the Fall '08 term at Yeshiva.
- Fall '08
- Tort Law