Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In medical malpractice cases, it is a matter of hornbook law that health care providers bear no liability for poor outcomes resulting from the exercise of professional judgment, as long as they adhere to the relevant standard of care. In an attempt to facilitate jurors' understanding of this concept, courts across the country have given “mistake” or “error-of-judgment” charges, which typically instruct the jury that physicians are entitled to exercise their professional judgment in choosing either of two reasonable options.
Originally, mistake-of-judgment charges were given in failure-to-diagnose cases where parties presented evidence about the existence of two or more equally viable alternatives for treatment or diagnosis. See Nestorowich v. Ricotta, 97 N.Y.2d 393, 400 (N.Y. 2002). This benign and legally appropriate charge has at times been manipulated into an exculpatory instruction for professional malfeasance, and is offered even in cases where the alleged negligence did not involve an error in judgment, but rather an error in the mechanism of treatment. See Nestorowich (discussing mistake-in-judgment charge erroneously given in case where the alleged negligence was a physician's mistake in ligating a renal artery that he thought was a vessel supplying blood to plaintiff's tumor). Defense attorneys often attempt to use the rule as a talisman throughout the case, masking professional negligence underneath the guise of professional judgment. See, e.g. Das v. Thani, 171 N.J. 518, 528-29, 795 A.2d 876, 883 (“Defense counsel, 'knowing the power of the judgment charge, took every opportunity to lead the court and jury into thinking that the entire case revolved around the exercise of judgment'.”).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.