Case Study Ms. Williams Negligence

“Medical malpractice occurs when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, causes an injury to a patient. The negligence might be the result of errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare or health management.” (Admin) One of the most common type of claims that pharmacies face are negligence claims. Negligence is one of the categories that falls under the area of law called Torts. In the Hundley v Rite Aid case, a tort was filed for injuries that were sustained by Gabrielle Hundley after she took medication from an incorrectly filed prescription. The case involved a jury trial verdict involving Gabrielle Hundley, a minor child, against Howard Jones, the pharmacist, and the Rite

The tort law section that falls into this case is negligence. Negligence is made up of three elements which determine negligence and duty of care is owed in this case State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

This event was a very unfortunate tragedy, although it was used as an opportunity to create a new legal precedent which determines whether or not a child can be convicted for crimes though to be classified as an ‘adult crime’, for example, manslaughter. Doli incapax, assumes that any child aged 10-14 is incapable of criminal intent unless proven otherwise.

The Juvenile justice system has changed over the years. Before the first establishment of this system, courts and judges treated juveniles as adults and sometimes received the same punishment as adults. For many years, there were debates on if children before the age of 21 were responsible for their actions seeing as they aren’t fully capable of understanding their actions. This murder of Jamie Bulger created an uproar all over the world on children at such a young age know right from wrong and also violence. Backgrounds, and family upbringing and violence in the media had played a

The Queens District Attorney’s Office charged the Swinton’s with first-degree assault, claiming the parents knew or should have known the diet would endanger IIce’s life. Also they had failed to seek medical attention. The opposing side’s lawyer argued that IIce being premature was the main cause of IIce’s medical state. The Swinton’s argued they did care for their child, they did not intentionally harm her and should not be deprived of their parental rights. The jury of the New York Supreme Court found the Swinton’s guilty of first-degree assault as well as lesser charges of reckless endangerment and endangerment of the welfare of a child to the first-degree.

"I went through so much with these kids. I'm just ready to call it quits," said Patricia Holdaway, the first parent charged under the curfew law of Roanoke, Virginia. Her 16-year-old son was arrested at 5 a.m. for his fifth curfew violation and for driving without a license. "I just left. It's not her fault. She shouldn't be held responsible. I know right from wrong," replied her son (Leo). So who should be held responsible, the parent or the child ? As cases similar to Patricia's continue to increase, states are starting to hold the parents responsible for the crimes of their children. As a result of this matter, John Leo presented the benefits of

This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the

Further, if JR goes five years without incident after her release, her criminal record may be cleared in accordance to the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). This is a fundamental controversy within JR’s sentencing. The actions that were carried out by JR and Steinke on April 23rd, were not only heinous, but were also premeditated. JR was fully cognizant of her actions that morning; in contrast, Steinke was high off of pot, cocaine, ecstasy, beer, wine and vodka when he committed his actions (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). Friends of Steinke also reported that he made many attempts to talk JR out of her plans for them to murder her family (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). He confided to his friends that JR would most likely end their relationship if he did not kill her family, which would have been devastating for Steinke, (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). At trial, Jr’s defense often attempted to portray her as an innocent little girl who was a victim of a disturbed predator (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). In contrast, and as the prosecutor pointed out, much of the evidence incriminated JR as the actual mastermind of the homicides (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). Wilson (2013) would align himself with those who advocate for a lengthier sentence, stating

Neil Rekun was killed while riding a motorcycle as he was hit by Carl Pelaez. According to Judge Raup, Rekun was 60% negligent and Pelaez was 40% negligent. “Under Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Act, a plaintiff cannot recover if he or she is more than 50% negligent” (238). In the arbitrary agreement between the two parties, they use the term “comparative fault” which did not include a bar on recovery if a plaintiff was more than 50%

The courts experience many challenges that include determining whether a child who commits a heinous crime should be sentenced in a manner that reflects their actions or based on their ability for rehabilitation. Children have the capacity to commit terrible acts of violence, and when they do the question posed is if they should be punished based on their actions or based on their ability to rehabilitate. The judges also look to see what’s in the best interest of the child (Chambliss, 2005), especially regarding their age. The age of the juvenile in question places tremendous weight on the judge as they want what is

Patricia Williams testimony demonstrates the negative impact the color blind ideology can have on others, in this case her son. The “color makes no difference” statement that the teachers were declaring formed a resistance in her son when identifying colors. This ideology shapes how people understand different races consequently letting racial matters be ignored and avoided. This ideology is indeed problematic is it impacts the way people respond to situations and events. Race must be taken into account in order to address issues of race. Without it, there will be a misunderstanding of, racial hostility, discrimination and other issues. Without it, they will continue to go consciously unnoticed and unsolved.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Due to the consequences of their child’s act of destruction and lack of morals and values, parents who maintain by law, total accountability of their children owe it to their community to pay for all costs incurred. The repercussions of family embarrassment may, in the long run teach not only the children how to obey authority through implemented rules and regulations, but it may also cause the parents to ultimately learn that their parenting skills need to align with acceptable standards of society. When faced with hundreds of dollars in court cost, legal fees and property damage

In this report is a fully reasoned quantification of, our client, Mr. Steven Pearson’s personal injury claim against Mr. Fred Prendergast.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.