Law Commons^™

Insuring Bias: Does Evidence Of Common Insurance Demonstrate Relevant Expert Witness Bias In Medical Negligence Litigation?, 55 Duq. L. Rev. 339 (2017), Marc Ginsberg

Marc D. Ginsberg

No abstract provided.

An Evidentiary Oddity: “Careful Habit” – Does The Law Of Evidence Embrace This Archaic/Modern Concept?, 43 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 293 (2017), Marc Ginsberg

Marc D. Ginsberg

The concept of the “careful habit”[i] is intriguing. The law of evidence vigorously distinguishes between character evidence (largely inadmissible)[ii] and habit evidence (presumptively admissible).[iii] Character is understood as a propensity to act in a certain fashion[iv]—a person’s disposition. Habit is understood as non-volitional, repetitive specific conduct, in response to stimuli, over a rather lengthy period of time.[v] “Carefulness” is known by the law as a character trait.[vi] Carefulness should not be confused with habit, yet this confusion has occurred in multiple jurisdictions, many years ago and recently. This paper seeks to explore the development of the curious and anomalous concept …

Beyond Canterbury: Can Medicine And Law Agree About Informed Consent? And Does It Matter?, 45 J.L. Med. & Ethics 106 (2017), Marc Ginsberg

Marc D. Ginsberg

For those of us whose scholarship focuses on medico-legal jurisprudence, the law of informed consent is a gift. It has been a fertile topic of discussion for decades, with no end in sight. Although it is not difficult to acknowledge that patient autonomy is at the core of informed consent, the doctrine is not static - it has evolved in scope and continues to engage courts in thought provoking analysis.

An Evidentiary Oddity: “Careful Habit” -- Does The Law Of Evidence Embrace This Archaic/Modern Concept?, Marc D. Ginsberg

Marc D. Ginsberg