Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Multi-Million Dollar Verdicts: Time for a Second Opinion
Few health-care providers confronting the reality of trial proceedings in cases involving serious injury or death fail to recognize the possibility of a multi-million dollar verdict being returned in favor of the plaintiff. In 2003, 15 of the top 100 verdicts reported nationwide by Verdictsearch resulted from medical malpractice actions, with the range falling between an award of approximately $19,465,000 to an incredible $112 million in a case involving the alleged failure to diagnose an aneurysm, which led to the patient's quadriplegia and significant brain damage. See www:verdictsearch.com/news/top100.
Recognition of the numerous multi-million-dollar verdicts that have been returned against health care providers, both corporate and individual, is not intended as a criticism of the skilled defense lawyers who were involved in these cases. The fact that a defendant involved in a case of potentially catastrophic damages entrusts the trial of so serious a matter to one or more lawyers reflects the highest degree of trust between attorney and client, and in most if not all trials, further reflects years of successful litigation experience by defense counsel. Nevertheless, given the significant number of seven- and eight-figure verdicts returned over the past decade in medical malpractice litigation, it is perhaps incumbent on all of us who specialize in the defense of such matters to re-examine our approach and consider whether all that could be done has, in every case, been done.
The Scope of the Problem
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.