Law Case Study

Law Case Study

Claim 1 - Karl vs. Dogwood

Karl has a very good negligence claim against the doctor. Dr. Dogwood had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and exercised poor judgment in failing to take appropriate action immediately when he noticed the condition of the ECR grounding pad. That poor judgment was a breach of the doctor's duty of care to protect Karl from foreseeable harm during the surgical procedure. Karl will argue that the doctor knew or should have known that using the ECR pad in the condition it was in was too dangerous.

Possible Defenses

Dr. Dogwood might argue that his only mistake was in misjudging the severity of the burn that might result and that the ECR manufacturer is actually responsible for the harm caused by their products unfitness for its intended purposes. The Dr. will attempt to characterize this as a products liability case instead of a negligence case. Neither of those arguments is likely to be successful.

Claim 2 -- Karl vs. Hospital

Karl has a good claim against the hospital under the theory of respondeat superior because under that theory, the hospital is jointly responsible for the negligence of it employees. Specifically, the argument is that the hospital has an obligation to ensure the safety of patients by hiring competent doctors, training them properly, and monitoring their performance to identify possible risks to patients.

Possible DefensesDownload full
paper NOW!

Case Study on Law Case Study Assignment

The hospital might argue that it is not responsible for an isolated instance of poor judgment of its employees unless there is other evidence that should have… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE