Custom Flashcards
Titus v. Bradford R.R.
Rule: The standard of care for business practices is that of the average prudent man engaged in that particular trade considering the usages, habits, and ordinary risks of the business.
Court held: Not negligent. Transporting train cars in the manner that killed π was the industry standard and therefore, the RR was not negligent.
Mayhew v. Mining
Rule: Industry custom is not a defense to gross negligence.
Court held: Even if it is industry standard, there should be reasonable care taken to prevent injury. If business acts according to custom and custom itself constitutes gross negligence then the custom need to change.
T.J. Hooper
Tug boat Radio- Rule: A business may be liable for failing to adopt new technology, even if the industry has not widely adopted it, if the use of the technology constitutes reasonable prudence.
Court held: An industry as a whole may at times be lagging behind, but this is no excuse for the failure to take reasonable precautions. In this case, the tugboat operator is liable for negligence due to its failure to use useful, safety-promoting radio technology, regardless of whether the technology is widely adopted within the navigation community.
Lama v Barras
Medical malpractice case, man in Puerto Rico was not given proper care. Ignored the standard.
Rule: A doctor must use that degree of skill and learning which is normally possessed and used by doctors in good standing, in a similar practice, in a similar community, and under like circumstances.
Court held: To establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice (negligence) Plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the standard of care required by Defendant; (2) proof that Defendant failed to meet this standard of care; and, (3) a causal relation between the act or omission of Defendant and the injury suffered. To establish the applicable standard of care, expert testimony is usually required.
Canterbury
NOT Majority view- custom is to disclose what a reasonably patient would want to know prior to deciding to proceed with medical procedure.
Rule: A physician must disclose all risks to a patient, prior to a medical procedure, which a reasonable person would consider significant in deciding whether to go forward with the procedure.
Court held: A doctor must disclose all risks to a patient, prior to a medical procedure, which a reasonable person would consider significant in deciding whether to go forward with the procedure. Informed consent is required.
Bly v. Rhoad
Majority view.
Rule: informed consent: standard of disclosure based on expert testimony of what a reasonable doctor would reveal; not on what patient needs to know
Murray v. UNMC
Woman died because hospital refused to administer drug without clearance from insurance.
Rule: Under the customary standard of care, an expert medical witness may offer an opinion that a doctor should consider the health risks to a patient who may not be able to pay for ongoing treatment.
Court hald: the trial court erroneously held that, as a matter of law, a medical standard of care cannot be tied to, or controlled by, an insurance company or the need for payment. In Nebraska, the standard of reasonable and ordinary care is found in the customary practices prevailing among reasonable and prudent physicians without concern over whether has the ability to pay.
