Kusmider V. State Case Study

A Defendant’s actions are the proximate cause of the victim’s death if the result occurred as a natural and

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

Yandrich v. Radic, plaintiff was not successful in his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s father committed suicide allegedly due to his depression from another son being killed by a car. 495 A.2d 460, 246 (Pa. 1981). The Court found that the father was not a witness because he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and thus could not find for the plaintiff in this case. The differences between Yandrich and Ms. Nordlund’s claim outweigh their legal similarities, as the father in Yandrich did not see the scene of the accident like Ms. Nordlund did. Ms. Nordlund’s poor vision is a weakness in her claim, but having heard and seen the accident, (despite her blurry vision), may be strong enough to overcome

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) the Supreme Court held that a law requiring children to

Perhaps, according to Bernard Schwartz, the greatest failure of American law during World War II may be illustrated by the case of Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu. As graphically described in 1944 by a member of the bench, his case is one that is unique in our system:

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

Frosch, D and Johnson, K. (2007). Colorado Hearing Re-examine 1987 Murder Case. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/us/27fortcollins.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

‘Is a no fault regime better than a negligence rule as a way of dealing with the causes and consequences of medical error?’

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

The case that I decided to analyze is a criminal case, State Vs Stepp. Joshua Stepp was charged with first-degree murder as well as first-degree sexual assault of his ten-month-old step daughter Cheyenne Yarley. Stepp is an ex-military man who claims to suffer from PTSD. Stepp asks that the court charge him with second-degree murder on the account that he “was unable to perform the specific intent to kill” due to his PTSD.

As a result of the failure to adhere to the safety precautions before utilizing the automated external defibrillator the patient was severely burned on his neck and shoulders. “The patient can show a legally sufficient relationship between the breach of duty and the injury; this concept is referred to as proximate causation” (). If standards of care had been meet the injury that the patient now suffers could have been prevented.

Proximate cause or cause in fact must ordinarily be elements of proof in all personal injury actions. In negligence actions, the plaintiff must establish essentially four elements: 1) duty; 2) Breach of duty; 3) Causation; and 4) Damages. Obviously cause in fact and proximate cause are part of the causation element.

In this case, the accident is the proximate cause of Mrs. Smith’s injuries and the medical providers are the intervening cause, as their breach of duty exacerbated Mrs. Smith’s injury to the point of permanent disability and disfigurement.

Factual causation is established as ‘but for’ Robbie stabbing Tommy twice in the stomach Tommy would not have died. However, legal causation must also be established as the ‘but for’ test is too wide and catches a wide range of individuals. The injury caused by Robbie must be the Substantial cause of Tommy’s death. This means Robbie stabbing Tommy twice must be more than de minimis contribution to Tommy’s death (Kimsey 1996). Robbie’s actions must be the also be the blame for Tommy’s death (Dalloway 1847).