Law Commons^™

Using Clinical Practice Guidelines And Knowledge Translation Theory To Cure The Negative Impact Of The National Hospital Peer Review Hearing System On Healthcare Quality, Cost, And Access, Katharine Van Tassel

Katharine Van Tassel

This Article starts with a history of the growth of hospital peer review and then examines the merits of the rationales that motivated the passage of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 ('HCQIA'), which catapulted peer review into the national system that exists today. The Article next explains how the peer review hearing process works and how HCQIA turns private hospitals into small, individual quasi-regulatory agencies. The Article goes on to critique the 'bad apples' approach taken by hospital peer review in light of the growing body of empirical research that supports a systems improvement approach to dealing …

Minnesota Comparative Fault—Statutory Reform, Mike Steenson

Journal of Law and Practice

No abstract provided.

Liability Of Liquor Vendors For Injuries To Intoxicated Persons, Kemock V. Mark Ii, Elinore Marsh

Akron Law Review

In an opinion anticipating, in part, the advent of the comparative negligence standard in Ohio, Kemock v. Mark II extends common law liability to include liquor vendors who serve already intoxicated patrons who injure themselves and whose injury is the proximate result of continued alcohol consumption. Relying upon an earlier Ohio Supreme Court decision and a California Supreme Court case, the Court of Appeals of Ohio recognizes liability for vendor negligence which damages the drinker. The test for recovery is one not previously applied in cases of this sort in Ohio; one which measures liability by balancing degrees of each …

Comparative Negligence In Ohio: Prospective Or Retrospective Application, Beth Whitmore

Akron Law Review

Under Revised Code § 2315.19, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is no longer an absolute bar to recovery. Only where a plaintiff's fault is greater than that of all defendants combined is that plaintiff precluded entirely from recovery. Thus under the new Ohio statute, the possibility of recovery for the negligent plaintiff is significantly enhanced while at the same time liability exposure of the defendant is proportionately enlarged. It is therefore of critical importance to determine whether such an alteration in the relative rights of litigants is constitutional.

Judicial Application Of Ohio's Comparative Negligence Statute, Michael J. Olah, Paul F. Meyerhoefer

Akron Law Review

In the case of Wilfong v. Batdorf the Ohio Supreme Court reexamined the issue of the retroactive application of Ohio's comparative negligence statute. Ohio's statute abolishing the defense of contributory negligence in a tort action was passed with an effective date of June 20, 1980, and the court faced the task of deciding whether comparative fault measurements could be used in an action arising prior to the effective date of the statute, but not coming to trial until after the effective date of the act. Previously the court had the opportunity to examine this issue in the case of Viers …

Apportioning Liability In Maryland Tort Cases: Time To End Contributory Negligence And Joint And Several Liability, Donald G. Gifford, Christopher J. Robinette

Faculty Scholarship

The Article presents a comprehensive proposal for assigning liability in tort cases according to the parties’ respective degrees of fault. The authors criticize the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s recent decision in Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia declining to abrogate contributory negligence, particularly the court’s notion that it should not act because of the legislature’s repeated failure to do so. The Article provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of comparative fault, including its effect on administrative costs, claims frequency, claims severity, insurance premiums, and economic performance. The authors propose the legislative enactment of comparative fault and …

Apportioning Liability In Maryland Tort Cases: Time To End Contributory Negligence And Joint And Several Liability, Donald G. Gifford, Christopher J. Robinette

Donald G Gifford

The Article presents a comprehensive proposal for assigning liability in tort cases according to the parties’ respective degrees of fault. The authors criticize the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s recent decision in Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia declining to abrogate contributory negligence, particularly the court’s notion that it should not act because of the legislature’s repeated failure to do so. The Article provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of comparative fault, including its effect on administrative costs, claims frequency, claims severity, insurance premiums, and economic performance. The authors propose the legislative enactment of comparative fault and …

Safeway Stores, Inc. V. Nest-Kart: The Culmination Of Li V. Yellow Cab Co., David R. Haglund

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Another Citadel Has Fallen - This Time The Plaintiff's. California Applies Comparative Negligence To Strict Products Liability, Thomas G. Gehring

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler

Pepperdine Law Review

In its landmark case of Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court judicially adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in an action involving a plaintiff and a single defendant. The court in Li specifically avoided making any decision concerning the numerous issues which would be involved in a multi-party action: the relationship of multiple defendants with one another, the right of one defendant to join others for the purpose of sharing payment of the judgment, the respective responsibilities of such parties for the judgment (including those insolvent, partially solvent or possessing an immunity), and the procedure for the …

Virginia Should Abolish The Archaic Tort Defense Of Contributory Negligence And Adopt A Comparative Negligence Defense In Its Place, Peter N. Swisher

Law Faculty Publications

The purpose of this essay is to argue that the time has now come for Virginia, by judicial or legislative action, to abolish its archaic common law tort defense of contributory negligence and replace it with a comparative negligence defense. Adopting a comparative negligence defense would more equitably and more fairly recognize and apportion damages according to the bedrock underlying tort legal principles of accountability, deterrence, and distribution of loss.

Respondent Superior As An Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize Themselves From Direct Negligence Claims, J. J. Burns

Michigan Law Review

Most courts hold that where a defendant employer admits that it is vicariously liable for its employee's negligence, a plaintiff's additional claims of negligent entrustment, hiring, retention, supervision, and training must be dismissed. Generally, courts apply this rule based on the logic that allowing a plaintiff's additional claims adds no potential liability beyond that which has already been admitted. Furthermore, since the additional claims merely allege a redundant theory of recovery once a respondeat superior admission has been made, the prejudicial evidence of an employee's prior bad acts which often accompanies direct negligence claims against employers can be excluded without …

What Are We Comparing In Comparative Negligence?, Paul H. Edelman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In tort cases, comparative negligence now is the dominant method for determining damages. Under that method, the jury apportions fault among the parties and assesses damages in proportion to the relative fault assessment. Comparative negligence contrasts with contributory negligence, where any fault attributed to the plaintiff bars recovery. Although comparative negligence routinely governs in tort cases, its most basic feature remains uncertain: how to apportion fault. In this Article, I demonstrate that at least two different methods exist, and that these methods lead to radically different outcomes. I create a framework, building on a traditional model from law and economics, …

Contributory Or Comparative: Which Is The Optimal Negligence Rule?, Christopher J. Robinette, Paul G. Sherland

Christopher J Robinette

A Practical View Of Farley V. Sartin, Thomas J. Hurney Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Efficiency, Fairness, And Common Sense: The Case For One Action As To Percentage Of Fault In Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions That Have Abolished Or Modified Joint And Several Liability, John S. Hickman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Plaintiffs are the masters of their own actions.' They decide when, where, and whom to sue. Although the law has evolved in ways that limit a plaintiffs procedural choices, plaintiffs enjoy a growing number of situations in which they can recover, and an increase in the number of possible defendants For example, governmental tort liability statutes, while limiting procedural choices, now allow plaintiffs to sue government entities. Modern jurisdictional rules give courts a wider reach and thus enable plaintiffs to reach more defendants in one action. Perhaps most importantly, a plaintiffs own negligence no longer bars recovery in most jurisdictions. …

Individual And Institutional Responsibility: A Vision For Comparative Fault In Products Liability, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Since the adoption of strict products liability over the last thirty years, two problems of scope have received the most attention: how to define product defectiveness to which the liability attaches, and how to limit the potentially limitless liability through defenses. Much like the industries of the nineteenth century, product liability defendants of the twentieth century turned to the plaintiff's conduct as a main line of defense. Blaming the victim has historically been a powerful tool for tort defendants to evade responsibility for their conduct. This Article proposes that the defenses based on victim fault that have evolved in our …

Individual And Institutional Responsibility: A Vision For Comparative Fault In Products Liability, Mary J. Davis

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comparative Negligence Under The Code: Protecting Negligent Banks Against Negligent Customers, Julianna J. Zekan

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article will examine modern banking practices with respect to processing checks and the effect of technology on liability for forged or altered checks. Part I describes the magnetic ink character-recognition system. Part II discusses check truncation. Part III recounts the evolution of contract and tort theories of liability from traditional to modern bank practices. Part IV analyzes the new comparative negligence provisions. Part V investigates the standards of ordinary care. Part VI evaluates the respective duties of the banks and their customers in light of the provisions that reflect the banking industry's transformation from the Paper Age to the …

King V. Kayak Manufacturing Corporation: Comparative Assumption Of Risk In West Virginina, Daniel W. Greear

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Joint And Several Liability Minnesota Style, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the rule of joint and several liability as it was adopted, modified, and applied in Minnesota circa 1989. The article first examines the judicial origins and applications of the rule in Minnesota. It then analyzes the impact of the comparative negligence and fault legislation on the rule of joint and several liability, including the limitations imposed on the rule in 1978, 1986, and 1988. Finally, it makes some suggestions for interpreting joint and several liability legislation that are consistent with the legislative history of the legislation as well as with Minnesota Supreme Court decisions concerning aggregation under …

The Presumption Of Due Care And The Law Of Comparative Negligence, Michael A. Pellini

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Must Cause Injury In Products Liability?, Aaron Gershonowitz

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Comparative Negligence In West Virginia: Beyond Bradley To Pure Comparative Fault, Jeff L. Lewin

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond Bradley: A Critique Of Comparative Contribution In West Virginia And Proposals For Legislative Reform, James B. Stoneking

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Product Liability In The Sixth Circuit: 1984-1985, Stephen J. Werber

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

The Sixth Circuit, as other federal courts, is deciding a growing number of product liability cases. The court has been required to carefully explore state substantive law in such complex areas as comparative fault and foreseeability. Several of the recent cases have required application of difficult facts to recognized legal principles. In the following article Professor Werber analyzes key decisions against applicable state law and suggests areas in which the court has applied that law in manners both consistent with, and contrary to, state law. Professor Werber is critical of the court's Erie determination that the Ohio Supreme Court would …

Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Adoption of comparative negligence gives juries the task of allocating fault between a plaintiff and a defendant when both were negligent and both caused the plaintiff's injury. A logical corollary must be that juries are theoretically and practically able to make such an allocation. If so, it follows that juries are able to make such an allocation among multiple defendants, each of whom was found to be both negligent and a cause of the plaintiff's injury. The judicial adoption of comparative negligence in Kentucky therefore requires a reexamination of the rules applicable to multiple tortfeasors. Cases decided since the adoption …

Comparing Fault, David C. Sobelsohn

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Comparative Negligence Checklist To Avoid Future Unnecessary Litigation, John M. Rogers, Randy Donald Shaw

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.