Intentional Tort In Medical Care

Another element is Specific Intent, which is a mental purpose, target or intention to accomplishing a specific damage or result by acting outlaw. The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to define a special state of mind that is mandatory, with a physical act, to constitute crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually means calculatedly or knowledgeably.

An action done to an individual that resulted to an injuries or damages, therefore the injured party can file legal actions for it ("Tort Law - Tort | Laws.Com"). In order to recover from the injuries and damages the complainant can actually demand a compensation in a monetary from from the party who caused the injuries. There are two types of tort it can either be constitutional or personal. Constitutional tort is when the person's rights will be forbidden to him/her that is actually provided or from the Constitution while the Personal tort, is tainting a person's reputation intentionally which law will never tolerate ("Tort Law - Tort | Laws.Com").

Rule: Battery is the unconsented harmful or offensive touching with the intent to harm or offend. Leroy did intend to immobilize John when he grabbed him, but this was done in the defense of a third party.

Our text defines a tort as “a civil wrong” and negligence as “a tort, a civil or personal wrong” (Pozgar, 2012). Negligence as it is related to healthcare is an unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person or organization would or would not do under normal circumstances. Not following a recognized standard of care could be considered negligence. The case I have chosen to study is one from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City Maryland and is that of Enso Martinez a minor by and through his parent (Rebecca Fielding) vs The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Maryland July 2013. I would describe this as a landmark, “David vs Goliath” case

Businesses could be held liable for negligent tort if their product injury, harms consumers or is falsely represented. Nonetheless, when the circumstances warrant, parties that are not guilty of negligence or an unintentional tort can still be subjected to compensations when their products injure customers (Seaquist, 2012) Recall Negligence is an unintentional tort wherein one party is injured result to some actions of another. There are certain factors that must be considered to determines whether a corporation acted negligently. The elements are the following: a breach of that duty, legal duty to use due care, a reasonable close causal connection between the breach and the plaintiffs resulting in injury, and the actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. This paper is going to discuss a negligent tort due to a company’s recall of its product. The company may be considered liable for negligence if there was no recall on their product and the product caused bodily harm to a consumer (Benjamin, 2015). Throughout the paper will discuss the reason of Toshiba recalling their laptop computer battery packs due to burn and because of its potential to catch fire on March 30, 2016 and the recall number is 16-131. If the company did not make the decision to recall their laptop computer battery could have been diligent. To prove the negligent tort the consumer must prove factors such duty to care and defenses of negligence (Seaquist, 2012).

For an intentional crime, the perpetrator must engage in conduct with the conscious objective and purpose of causing a particular unlawful result. People v Atkinson, 21 AD3d 145 (2d Dept 2005). Intent for the purposes of statutory requirements under the Penal Law can be inferred from the act itself or from the defendant’s [Respondent’s] conduct and the surrounding circumstances. People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296 (1977). More importantly, “t]he question of whether [respondent] acted with the requisite intent to harass, annoy, or alarm the complainant is an issue to be determined at trial. People v Grimaldi, 49 Misc 3d 1204(A) [Crim Ct

Medical malpractice claims have risen dramatically over the past 40 years alongside the financial claim awards (Kessler, 2011). Currently, America’s medical tort system is regulated and enforced primarily by the states (“Medical Tort System,” 2016). The main focus of tort law is to preserve the peace between two parties, to determine fault and discourage wrong doing (Pozgar, 2016). Most physicians today carry medical malpractice insurance to protect themselves from the high defense costs of claims and potential financial awards (Kessler, 2011). As the number of medical claims increase and jury awarded punitive damage skyrocket, medical malpractice insurance premiums have also risen dramatically (Kessler, 2011). Malpractice insurance

Section 1: In the first section of the paper, you should give careful thought to how you might define the policy problem.

General intent: The state of mind required for the commission of certain common-law crimes not requiring specific intent. Can take the form of recklessness (actual of awareness of a risk and culpable of taking that risk) or negligence (blameworthy carelessness).

Alexis- Negligence and Intentional torts both contribute to the health industry. Negligence is something that most people sue for, and all health professionals should understand how to avoid these situations. For example: the physician should make sure he/she has a complete understanding about the individual medical need, before releasing them. By doing this they can avoid the chances of misdiagnosing or creating mire problems. Protecting the patients right is and should a mission for each health provider to avoid a potential law suit. All professional should be knowledgeable about the importance of intentional torts a how to avoid crossing that path. Fastidious discussion post for this module, keep up the good work.

1) Was the trial correct in determining that intentional torts in a hospital setting are malpractice?

In week three we were provided with two scenarios and were asked to analyze the tort actions found in both. The first scenario involves fans and participants at a football game; including a father and son, and angry fan, stadium workers, and other spectators. Actions that transpire include the spilling of beer on one fan by another, a shove of one fan of anther, a fall, injury, yelling, and repercussions of the stated actions.

This paper will discuss the difference between negligence, gross negligence, and malpractice. Based on this information, the author will provide a position statement along with a rational for his decision. This position statement will indicate whether the case presented in the Neighborhood’s newspaper article, entitled “Amputation Mishap; Negligence”, presents a case of negligence, gross negligence, or malpractice. The importance of documentation and its correlation to potential negligence will also be presented. The ethical principles that would guide my practice if I were the nurse in the news article’s situation will be discussed. Examples of how the article case would be

A jury recently reached its decision in a case that involved allegations of surgery-related negligence. The case was the 2nd largest medical malpractice verdict in Pennsylvania history. The case was against William Norwood, the world famous cardiothoracic heart surgeon, who performed an unauthorized surgical procedure on Stephen Gault, leaving him severely brain damaged and in permanent need of long-term care. Stephen had a small narrowing in the aorta, "the blood vessel that leaves the heart and goes to all organs of the body." This condition is known as a "Coarctation of the Aorta" and it required a simple operation through the rib cage to correct it. He also had a small hole in his heart which was closing on it own and the his doctor reported

Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.