Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Tort law (2)
- Airbag products liability litigation (1)
- Anderson v. St. Francis-St. George Hospital (1)
- Carrel v. Allied Products Corp. (1)
- Collins v. Sotka (1)
-
- Common law tort claims (1)
- Damages (1)
- Damages for living (1)
- Doctrine of federal preemption (1)
- Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center (1)
- Ethical obligations (1)
- Express preemption (1)
- Federal legislation (1)
- Harm (1)
- Implied preemption (1)
- Jewish law (1)
- Judicial interpretation (1)
- Legal duty (1)
- Legislative reform (1)
- Life-sustaining treatment (1)
- Mental health practitioners (1)
- Natural law (1)
- Negligent practitioners (1)
- Negligent product design (1)
- Ohio Revised Code (1)
- Ohio supreme court (1)
- Ohio tort reform (1)
- Positive law (1)
- Refusal of medical treatment (1)
- Right to refuse treatment (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Airbag Products Liability Litigation: State Common Law Tort Claims Are Not Automatically Preempted By Federal Legislation , Stephen D. Lichtenstein, Gerald R. Ferrera
Airbag Products Liability Litigation: State Common Law Tort Claims Are Not Automatically Preempted By Federal Legislation , Stephen D. Lichtenstein, Gerald R. Ferrera
Cleveland State Law Review
This article addresses an important and recurring issue of federalism, and attempts to resolve the tensions that exist between federal and state laws in the context of recent automobile airbag litigation. The authors trace the evolution of the preemption doctrine as it relates to airbag litigation, and write further as to how manufacturers adapt, developing business and ethical strategies of compliance to concurrent state and federal regulation. Two recent important decisions involving no airbag litigation, Tebbetts v. Ford Motor Co. and Wilson v. Pleasant, are interpretive of two provisions of the Safety Act. The former case discussed a preemption clause, …
Ohio Tort Reform In 1998: The War Continues , Stephen J. Werber
Ohio Tort Reform In 1998: The War Continues , Stephen J. Werber
Cleveland State Law Review
For more than a decade a war has been waged between forces seeking legislative reform of tort law, with emphasis on product liability, and the Ohio Supreme Court. The battleground has been the legislative enactments of the Ohio General Assembly. This legislation has faced consistent challenge before the court as a proper exercise of its power of judicial review. This article discusses the two primary cases in which the court has won its war with the legislature by replacing the legislative words and intent with judicial interpretations. Part II begins the discussion with a look at the Carrel v. Allied …
Anderson V. St. Francis-St. George Hospital: Wrongful Living From An American And Jewish Legal Perspective , Daniel Pollack, Chaim Steinmetz, Vicki Lens
Anderson V. St. Francis-St. George Hospital: Wrongful Living From An American And Jewish Legal Perspective , Daniel Pollack, Chaim Steinmetz, Vicki Lens
Cleveland State Law Review
As advances in medical technology have kept people alive longer, the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment has taken on an even more crucial and urgent significance to dying patients and their families. While modern medicine may have learned to save lives, the lives it has saved are often severely diminished and filled with pain and suffering. Although the right to refuse life saving medical treatment is firmly embedded in our nation's laws, what to do when this right is ignored has not been firmly settled. The Anderson court answered this question by "splitting the difference." It affirmed Winter's right to …
The Strict Application Of The Restatement, Ohio Law And The Rules Of Civil Procedure: Estates Of Morgan V. Fairfield Family Counseling Center, Geoffrey M. Wardle, Jeffrey L. Mallon
The Strict Application Of The Restatement, Ohio Law And The Rules Of Civil Procedure: Estates Of Morgan V. Fairfield Family Counseling Center, Geoffrey M. Wardle, Jeffrey L. Mallon
Cleveland State Law Review
Considered by some in the mental health profession as the imposition of an onerous duty, the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center represents an extension of the recognized legal duty imposed upon mental health practitioners who treat inpatients to those who treat outpatients. This created a uniform standard. The article begins in Part II by describing the story of a psychiatric patient, Matt Morgan. Part III then discusses the duty to control in the outpatient setting by going through traditional tort analysis, stare decisis, strict statutory application, and civil procedure. Part IV concludes …