SoC + Breach Flashcards

1
Q

Standards of Care

A

RPPSSC
Child
Negligence per se (statutory)
Professional/Medical

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Breach analysis for RPPSSC

A

BPL (+customer or slip/fall)
or RIL

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Breach analysis for Child

A

BPL (child modifier), custom, slip/fall
or RIL
UNLESS inherently dangerous/adult activity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Breach analysis for Negligence per se

A

Violation of a statute = breach
“some evidence” jx = BPL + some evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Breach analysis for Professional/Medical

A

(Failed) performance (with jx split)
custom
—-Same or similar locality
—-national standard for board certified specialists
—-national standard for all doctors

OR
Informed consent (with jx split)
The physician Rule
The Patient/Materiality Rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

“Add ons” to RPPSSC

A

Sudden emergency
physical condition (mental health conditions excluded)

*Superior skill/Heightened ability does not raise the minimum threshold, but a reasonable person is expected to use all of their skills and abilities to prevent harm (so can be considered when looking at overall negligence)
*Common carrier: same as SS/HA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Child standard of care elements

A

Child is compared to other children of the same:
age
experience
intelligence
maturity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

B<PL

A

Burden < Probability x Likely Harm

Burden: Not subjective – applies to D’s general category (airlines, construction companies, etc)
Probability: Probability ANY harm will result
Likely Harm: (loss, gravity, injury)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

custom evidence (elements)

A

It is widely used or well-established
It is highly relevant
There was a deviation from custom or compliance with it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Res Ipsa Loquitur - Somebody done goofed

A

The incident does not generally happen without negligence
It was caused by an instrument within the defendant’s control
The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause of their injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Standard of care (medical)

A

A medical worker is expected to possess and use the same level of knowledge, skills, and training as other professionals in good standing in the same practice are in the relevant geographical community.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Requirements for Medical Experts

A

Someone who can show they have knowledge from the relevant geographical area, even if it isn’t their own area of practice
Someone substantially familiar with the standard of care applicable to the defendant’s specialty or their own standard of care is substantially similar.

If in a same/similar locality jx, the expert must satisfy both

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Cases where experts are not needed

A

Common knowledge cases
Known inherent risk (***UNLESS it wasn’t disclosed prior)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

RIL in Med Mal

A

Must show that when these things happen, it is the result of medical malpractice
Control can be found for “all those defendants who had any control over the body or instrumentalities which might have caused the injury” (Ybarra)
Plaintiff did not contribute to their own injury (usually a non-issue because the patient is unconscious)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

The Physician Rule

A

A doctor is only required to divulge risks that other doctors in good standing in the relevant community would
Causation: a reasonable patient would have refused the procedure if the omitted information had been provided (objective only)

The outcome is decided purely on compliance or deviation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The Patient/Materiality Rule

A

A doctor must inform the patient of all material risks that a reasonable patient would want to know when deciding to undergo or reject a procedure.

Causation
Majority states: a reasonable patient would have refused the procedure if the omitted information had been provided (objective)*
Minority states: this specific patient would have refused (subjective)

17
Q

Exceptions to informed consent

A

Emergency
Therapeutic Privilege (rare– if the doctor thinks the patient’s health may be severely adversely affected by the disclosure of certain risks)

18
Q

Negligence Per Se (statutory) - elements

A

Defendant violated a law without an excuse
The injured party is in the class of people the law was intended to protect
The injury suffered was one that the law was intended to protect against

19
Q

Valid Excuses/exceptions to NPS

A

Incapacity (like sudden heart attack)
No knowledge or should have known
—–This applies to situations the defendant was not aware of, like a missing taillight
Sudden emergency
Violation of the statute was less harmful than following it

Licensing or general reasonableness statute