{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Negligence and Consent

Negligence and Consent - Duty Pt must be sufficiently...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bost v. Riley Boy shot in stomach, taken outside hosp, but hosp refused to treat him --> Docs were not employees or agents of Catawba, so could not claim vicarious agency Also claimed Catawba should be held liable for its own breach of duty What was duty of the hosp? --> Courts now say that the hosp has more duty than just being a "workshop"  Now, must make a "reasonable effort" to monitor and oversee treatment = Corporate Negligence        Informed Consent  - often used as a fall back decision
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Duty - Pt must be sufficiently informed of risks involved before having a procedure Which risks should be disclosed? Standard of care What a reasonable pt would want to know --> decided by jury Causation Subjective - ask plaintiff would you have undergone the procedure if you had known the risks? Obviously, no Objective - What would a reasonable person in the position of that pt have done --> much better...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online