Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ANA (1)
- AORN (1)
- American Nurses Association (1)
- Association of Operating Room Nurses (1)
- Bass v. Nooney Co. (1)
-
- Bergen v. Fourth Skyline Corp. (1)
- Campbell v. City of Bellevue (1)
- Carickhoff v. Badger-Northland (1)
- Carr v. United States (1)
- City of Tyler v. Ingram (1)
- Code of Virginia (1)
- Coniaris v. Vail Associates (1)
- Cornfeldt v. Tongen (1)
- Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital (1)
- Dillon v. Legg (1)
- Dillon v. Potomac Hospital Corp. (1)
- E. Eyring & Sons Co. v. City of Baltimore (1)
- FELA (1)
- Federal Employees' Liability Act (1)
- First Virginia Bank-Colonial v. Baker (1)
- Gannon Personnel Agency v. City of New York (1)
- General Assembly (1)
- JCAH (1)
- Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (1)
- Leong v. Takasaki (1)
- Mann v. County Board of Arlington (1)
- Masters v. Hart (1)
- McComish v. DeSoi (1)
- Norfolk & Southern Railroad v. Beskin (1)
- Obenshain v. Halliday (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Release Of Joint Tortfeasors-Virginia Code Section 8.01-35.1 And Its Retroactive Application, Gary R. Allen
Release Of Joint Tortfeasors-Virginia Code Section 8.01-35.1 And Its Retroactive Application, Gary R. Allen
University of Richmond Law Review
This comment was prompted by the 1979 enactment of Section 8.01- 35.1 of the Code of Virginia, which changed the law in Virginia regarding the release of, and contribution among, joint tortfeasors. Contribution statutes such as section 8.01-35.1 provide an equitable remedy for the problem of unjust enrichment (or, more accurately, unequal punishment) whenever one of several joint tortfeasors pays more than his ratable share of a claim. There has been considerable debate concerning the retroactive effect of these statutes-that is, whether a newly promulgated contribution statute can be applied retroactively to affect a claim which arose before the statute …
Local Government Liability In Virginia For Negligent Inspection Of Buildings, Structures And Equipment, Matthew W. Broughton
Local Government Liability In Virginia For Negligent Inspection Of Buildings, Structures And Equipment, Matthew W. Broughton
University of Richmond Law Review
There is a growing trend in Virginia, as well as in many other states, for injured citizens to hold local governments liable for personal injuries and loss of property resulting from the negligent inspection by building officials of privately owned buildings and structures. The recent abrogation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the majority of jurisdictions has served to encourage such litigation, but abrogation alone has proven to be no guarantee of recovery for negligent inspection. Rather, the majority of jurisdictions have continued to enjoy immunity by asserting that building inspectors perform a discretionary governmental function for which no …
After The Impact Rule - Limiting Defendant's Liability In Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Cases: Bass V. Nooney Co., William Mark Hillsman
After The Impact Rule - Limiting Defendant's Liability In Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Cases: Bass V. Nooney Co., William Mark Hillsman
University of Richmond Law Review
In Bass v. Nooney Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri abandoned the rule that a defendant is not liable for negligence which produces emotional distress unless the plaintiff suffers a contemporaneous physical injury or impact. This "impact rule" was the majority position in the United States in the first part of this century and had been a part of Missouri's jurisprudence since 1881. In Bass, however, Missouri joined the mainstream of American jurisprudence by providing judicial protection against a plaintiff's loss of emotional tranquility without requiring contemporaneous physical impact.
Admissibility Of Written Standards As Evidence Of The Standard Of Care In Medical And Hospital Negligence Actions In Virginia, Gwen M. Schockemoehl
Admissibility Of Written Standards As Evidence Of The Standard Of Care In Medical And Hospital Negligence Actions In Virginia, Gwen M. Schockemoehl
University of Richmond Law Review
The standard of care in a medical negligence action represents the duty which the defendant physician, nurse, hospital or other health care provider owes to the patient. In Virginia, it is that degree of care and skill possessed by the reasonably prudent practitioner of the same specialty in this state. This standard is an elusive one at best. While learned treatises and journal articles assist in determining the standard, in practice the plaintiff offers experts who state, based on their knowledge, training, and experience that the standard of care requires the defendant to provide a particular type of care which …