Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Verdicts
New Theory of Liability Cannot Defeat Summary Judgment Motion
Summary dismissal of a suit against a hospital was proper where the plaintiff presented no evidence to back her pleaded theory of liability, but instead produced an expert opinion concerning a second theory of which the defendant hospital had not been informed. Tam v. Garfield Medical Center Inc., 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5149 (Cal.App.2d, 7/22/14).
The plaintiff's father, Hung Sun Tam (Mr. Tam), suffered abdominal and shoulder injuries in a car accident. Prior to undergoing emergency surgery to address these issues, Mr. Tam, who was then alert, stable and able to communicate, was given a dose of Morphine. According to his daughter's complaint for wrongful death and medical malpractice, the Morphine caused his blood pressure to drop immediately, causing him to go into cardiac respiratory arrest. Mr. Tam was then intubated and sent to the operating room with instructions to resuscitate, and his planned surgeries were completed. According to the plaintiff, following surgery Mr. Tam was sent to the intensive care unit, where a “pulmonary consultation revealed that Mr. Tam was in a deep coma” and he “died shortly thereafter, on the same day he was admitted.” In her suit brought in Superior Court, Los Angeles County, the plaintiff alleged that the doctor responsible for administering Morphine to her father and the hospital at which her father was treated, Garfield Medical Center Inc., thereby caused his death.
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.