b Rule Open and Obvious Doctrine land possessors cannot be held liable to

B rule open and obvious doctrine land possessors

This preview shows page 16 - 18 out of 21 pages.

b. Rule: Open and Obvious Doctrine: land possessors cannot be held liable to invitees who are injured on open and obvious dangers, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. Restatement 2d § 343(1) c. Holding: the hospital owed a duty and had good reason to expect a paramedic would trip and fall and although the curb was open and obvious, a paramedic is distracted. It was foreseeable. d. Restatement 3 rd Known or obvious dangers pose a reduced risk because those exposed can take precautions to protect themselves, however in some circumstances a residual risk will remain. Land possessors have a duty of care in regard to the residual risks. 5. Firefighter Rule a. Case: Minnich v. Med Waste Inc. (S.C. 2002) i. Rule: a firefighter who entered private property to perform his job was a licensee, and could not recover tort damages from the property owner whose ordinary negligence caused the fire. 6. Reasonable Care Standard for Landowners a. 1968 a Cali court ruled that landowners and occupiers would be subject to the duty of ordinary care to those upon the land. It was in response to a complicated system that dealt with the question of status of the entrant rather than the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct b. Case: Scurti v, City of New York (N.Y. 1976) i. Rule: Landowner liability to any person injured on his premises will now be based upon the foreseeability of the injured person’s presence at the place of injury, regardless of that person’s status under the C.L. Relevant factors include the Δ could not have done more, Π entered with out permission, effort required to prevent injury.
Image of page 16
Torts Final Outline Page 17of 21 Duties of Medical Professionals Medical malpractice suits are negligence suits with some special rules which: derive from the doctor-patient relationship; acceptance of the patient to be treated; the doctors undertaking of care. 1. Case: Walski v. Tiesenga (Ill. 1978) a. Rule: One element pf a cause of action for medical malpractice is proof of the standard of care by which the defendant’s physician’s conduct is to be measured. Generally expert testimony is needed for malpractice because jurors lack the knowledge of medical skills. b. Rule: how ever situations where the conduct is so grossly negligent, or treatment so common decisions indicate that no expert testimony is necessary c. Rule: Standard of care is determined by care customarily provided by other physicians d. Holding: Since the expert said there are other ways of operating on a thyroid, the was the Δ ’s way was not how he would have done it but an accepted method. Affirmed appellate dismissal e. Two rules of thought doctrine – if physician followed a course of treatment advocated by a considerable number of recognized and respected professionals in his area of expertise 2. Case: Vergara v. Doan (Ind. 1992) a. Rule: Modified Locality Rule: a doctor’s/hospital’s standards are to measured is the degree of care, skill, proficiency, which is commonly exercised by ordinarily careful, skillful, and prudent
Image of page 17
Image of page 18

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 21 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Hopkins
  • Tort Law, δ, a. Rule, Final Outline Page, Torts Final Outline

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture