Petriello v. Kalman case summary
576 A.2d 474 (Conn. 1990)
Tort Law
FACTS
-Plaintiff individual filed medical malpractice claim against defendant hospital and defendant doctor. -At trial, medical experts testified that as a result of injuries sustained during a surgical procedure, the individual had an increased risk of future bowel obstructions.
-The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the hospital.
-The jury returned a verdict for the individual in her claim against the doctor.
-On appeal, the court affirmed the directed verdict and the jury verdict.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff individual appealed a judgment of the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford (Connecticut) granting a directed verdict to defendant hospital in plaintiff individual's medical malpractice action. Defendant doctor appealed the jury verdict in plaintiff individual's favor in the same medical malpractice action.
HOLDING
The court held that in a tort action, a plaintiff who establishes a breach of duty that was a substantial factor in causing a present injury which has resulted in an increased risk of future harm is entitled to compensation to the extent that the future harm is likely to occur, overruling cases holding otherwise.
ANALYSIS
The court held that the hospital owed no duty to the individual to ensure that the nonemployee doctor obtained informed consent for surgery he performed. Hospital rules requiring doctors to obtain informed consent from patients prior to surgery did not obligate the hospital to obtain the informed consent.
RULES
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the directed verdict to defendant hospital because the hospital owed plaintiff individual no duty regarding informed consent for surgery performed by defendant doctor. The jury verdict against the doctor was affirmed because the individual established that the doctor's negligence caused the individual's present injury, resulting in increased risk of future harm entitling the individual to compensation.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
576 A.2d 474 (Conn. 1990)
Tort Law
FACTS
-Plaintiff individual filed medical malpractice claim against defendant hospital and defendant doctor. -At trial, medical experts testified that as a result of injuries sustained during a surgical procedure, the individual had an increased risk of future bowel obstructions.
-The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the hospital.
-The jury returned a verdict for the individual in her claim against the doctor.
-On appeal, the court affirmed the directed verdict and the jury verdict.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff individual appealed a judgment of the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford (Connecticut) granting a directed verdict to defendant hospital in plaintiff individual's medical malpractice action. Defendant doctor appealed the jury verdict in plaintiff individual's favor in the same medical malpractice action.
HOLDING
The court held that in a tort action, a plaintiff who establishes a breach of duty that was a substantial factor in causing a present injury which has resulted in an increased risk of future harm is entitled to compensation to the extent that the future harm is likely to occur, overruling cases holding otherwise.
ANALYSIS
The court held that the hospital owed no duty to the individual to ensure that the nonemployee doctor obtained informed consent for surgery he performed. Hospital rules requiring doctors to obtain informed consent from patients prior to surgery did not obligate the hospital to obtain the informed consent.
RULES
| - | In a tort action, a plaintiff who has established a breach of duty that was a substantial factor in causing a present injury which has resulted in an increased risk of future harm is entitled to compensation to the extent that the future harm is likely to occur. To the extent that the following cases hold otherwise, they are overruled |
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the directed verdict to defendant hospital because the hospital owed plaintiff individual no duty regarding informed consent for surgery performed by defendant doctor. The jury verdict against the doctor was affirmed because the individual established that the doctor's negligence caused the individual's present injury, resulting in increased risk of future harm entitling the individual to compensation.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment