Posts Tagged ‘ Liability ’

Tort Reform Video Takes it Too Far–or Right on the Money?

January 24th, 2012. By AbiK

Was clicking around on some attorney blogs, and came across this gem—a rendering of what tort reform could look like for medical malpractice. Clearly it’s a bit over the top in a number of ways–but the point is there. And sadly, it takes a dramatization like this in order to crystallize key points buried in tort reform legislation. 

If you’re wondering what the HR 5 bill is, it’s aim is to “improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.” That’s the aim. And it all sounds good—until you start to read and understand what it all might mean to you or your loved one should you find yourself in need of a personal injury attorney.

Oh, and note to self: phrases on a government bill such as “sharing of information” should always pique one’s interest…

Tags: Caps on Damages, HR5 Bill, Liability, medical malpractice, Punitive damages, Tort Reform
Posted in Emerging Issues, Tort Reform | No Comments »

Lia-bil-ity…Easy as 1-2-3

March 17th, 2010. By Kristine B

Often in the media you’ll hear the word ‘liability’ thrown around. In fact, liability is a word that’s used all the time. However, while people may have an idea of what liability is, they may not know all the ins and outs of it. So, this Pleading Ignorance discusses liability and some of the forms of liability. Sound exciting? You bet it is!

Legal liability refers to a party’s legal responsibility for an act or omission. If that party fails to meet its legal obligations, it could be open to a lawsuit for any damages that resulted from a failure to meet those obligations. Hence (to use another fancy word) we say that the party is liable. By the way, it’s a “party” and not a “person” because a company or other entity can be held liable as well—not just a person.

Lawsuits involving liability must prove three things:

• That the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff
• That the defendant failed to fulfill the duty, and
• That the failure to fulfill the duty resulted in damages to the plaintiff.

Fail to prove all three and you’ve failed to prove liability.

For example, Stephen is driving a car and fails to stop at a red light. While in the intersection, he hits the car Sandra is in, which had the right of way. Sandra is injured in the accident. Sandra can argue that…

• Stephen had a duty of care to the other drivers on the road—including to Sandra
• Stephen’s duty of care was breached when he failed to stop at the red light, and
• Because Sandra was injured in the car accident she can prove that Stephen’s failure to meet his duty of care caused her injuries.

All three answered, so it’s sounding like Stephen’s pretty liable.

So you’ve got the gist of legal liability. But recently, there have been mentions in the news of joint and several Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Joint Liability, Liability, Pleading Ignorance, Several Liability
Posted in Pleading Ignorance | No Comments »