Found 5377 results for: Torts Sample Exam Answer
[DOWNLOAD] Torts Sample Exam Answer
While such a defense might be adequate when the proposed alternative is still experimental, there is no evidence that CIA was an experimental treatment. Huber may also argue that the treatment need not have been disclosed because the HMO would not...
Found: 10 Jun 2021 | Rating: 93/100
[FREE] Torts Sample Exam Answer
Huber also failed to disclose a material risk of the Hydrozap treatment. The Hydrozap treatment has a rare side effect of converting "fast twitch" muscle fibers into "slow twitch" muscles. Carillon's first course of the Hydrozap treatment resulted...
Found: 10 Jun 2021 | Rating: 92/100
A prudent person in his position would choose to treat the symptoms of the disease with antibiotics, or, had he been informed, pay for the more expensive treatment that did not have the devastating side effect. A physician has the defense to a claim of failure to disclose if the patient cannot give consent due to emergency, unconsciousness, etc. Huber may employ the later defense. However, the courts narrowly circumscribe this exception. Huber's argument that Carillon would have declined the treatment to his detriment because of the potential side effect fails. In Carillon's position, the side effect was of tremendous importance. Furthermore, an alternate treatment existed; Carillon could have received treatment for the disease without risking his fast twitch muscles.
Found: 7 Apr 2021 | Rating: 85/100
Additionally, Huber had a duty to disclose his own interest in Carillon's unusual white blood cells. Within the concept of informed consent, a doctor has the duty to disclose all information relating to the patient's decision regarding treatment. The California Supreme Court held that the duty of a doctor to "disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient's health" is contained in the doctrine of informed consent. Moore, p. In fact, it was not until after Huber took Carillon's blood and other bodily substances that he turned to the question of treatment. Though it may not have affected Huber's judgment regarding treatment, it did affect his decision to treat Carillon at all. Had Huber not discovered Carillon's unusual white blood cells during the first consultation, he may have informed Carillon of all potential treatments, leaving Carillon with the possibility of finding another physician who would undertake the more expensive option.
Found: 21 Apr 2021 | Rating: 91/100
Instead, Huber said that Carillon was to return for "follow up tests. The Moore court declined to recognize a claim of conversion regarding a patient's proprietary interest in his spleen and bodily fluids. The majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Moore extensively discussed the legal and public policy interests at stake in recognizing such a claim. This essay will not restate all of those arguments, but suggest how Carillon's case is distinguishable from Moore. The Moore court held that California statutes relating to the disposition of excised cells governed the case.
Found: 13 Apr 2021 | Rating: 88/100
Answers To Practice Torts Hypo
Connecticut may have different statutory law regarding an individual's ownership of bodily products. Furthermore, the heart of the dispute in Moore was the doctor's taking of parts of the patient's spleen. There are several reasons Carillon's property interest in his blood is very different from a patient's interest in a nonrenewable organ. The state has valid reasons for prohibiting an individual from selling a nonrenewable organ--there are some things that simply should not be commodified and some may sell organs to great personal detriment. Blood is a saleable commodity.
Found: 9 Apr 2021 | Rating: 89/100
Academic Success Resources For Students: Exams
Every day thousands of Americans legally sell their plasma. Furthermore, individuals are allowed to sell sperm and eggs. Carillon's unusual white blood cells are far more like plasma sold to blood banks and sperm and eggs sold to fertility clinics, than, for example, an enlarged spleen or sold kidney. This does not eliminate the hard questions raised in Moore, such as the strict liability implications of conversion for medical products. It does, however, provide a more compelling case for recognizing the tort of conversion for Carillon's blood. The measurement of damages is also a difficult question. The profitable blood plasma products Huber developed were not taken directly from Carillon. Carillon cannot be entitled to recover the full value of these products. However, he should have been able to negotiate some compensation for the use of his unusual white blood cells.
Found: 14 Apr 2021 | Rating: 89/100
Because Huber failed to disclose his personal interest in Carillon's blood, this negotiation was not possible. Carillon may claim that Dr. Huber falsely imprisoned him. Under the pretense of "follow up tests" Carillon visited Huber's office a second time. During this visit Huber did nothing to address Carillon's disease; he only appropriated Carillon's bodily fluids for his own purposes. Huber will argue that Carillon was not really imprisoned; he may have left at any time.
Found: 2 Apr 2021 | Rating: 85/100
Torts Exam, Structure, Suggested Answers From Past Exams
Furthermore, on the authority of Herd v. Weardale Huber will argue that Carillon consented to his time at the office. However, Carillon was there under false pretense. Carillon believed that in order to fight his disease he had to visit the doctor and submit to extraction of bodily substances. Whether Carillon has a winnable claim will hinge on the court's conception of false imprisonment.
Found: 24 Apr 2021 | Rating: 89/100
Torts Study Guide: Sample Exam Questions
If the court takes a narrow perspective--false imprisonment is conscious confinement--Carillon will lose. If the court adopts a broader perspective--false imprisonment is the wrongful restriction of liberty and the freedom of movement--Carillon's chances are better. Carillon may have a warranty claim against the Edison Industries, the manufacturers of Hydrozap. Alternative A only extends express and implied warranties when the individual injured is a guest in the home of the buyer.
Found: 14 Apr 2021 | Rating: 92/100
Under Alternative A, since Carillon was not in a "home," it is unlikely he could recover under warranty. Furthermore, even under Alternatives B or C, Carillon's claim may fail. There may be a time-limit on either an express or implied warranty. The machine had been in use for five years. The warranty probably expired. Carillon has a better claim under strict products liability for the Hydrozap's electrical failure.
Found: 13 Apr 2021 | Rating: 87/100
National Conference Of Bar Examiners
The first possible products liability claim is that of a manufacturing defect. This claim is weak. The York Street hospital frequently moved the machine, producing vibrations that probably caused the crack. This is not normal use of sophisticated, delicate hospital equipment. A design defect claim is stronger. An inexpensive safety device could have been added to the Hydrozap that would have prevented this injury. A simple current monitoring device, such as that in an automobile, could have been attached to the machine to show whether or not the generator was operative. In Micallef v. Miehle the court noted that what is "reasonable care. If Carillon or attendants could tell it was not working properly, he could have received the treatment elsewhere.
Found: 9 Apr 2021 | Rating: 89/100
CLAT Exam Pattern 2021 - Mode, Types Of Questions, Marking Scheme
Upon this showing of causation, the burden is switched to Edison Industries to demonstrate that the cost of such a safety device would outweigh the benefit. Carillon may argue that Edison had a duty to warn of the "slow twitch" side effect. Edison will respond that its documentation did note the risk, and that this warning was adequately conveyed to Dr. Huber, a "learned intermediary. Ortho, treatment for Grenadier's disease is far from common. Therefore, it was reasonable to leave the warning to the doctor. The duty to warn claim will fail. Regarding all of these strict liability claims, Edison will argue that Federal law preempts. This is a weak assertion. Federal regulations prohibiting the opening of Hydrozap, except by an authorized repair facility, hardly amount to Congress taking over the field. There is no evidence that by creating this regulation Congress intended to preempt state law, as explained in Cipollone. Finally, Carillon may contest the validity of his contract with Demona and Dr.
Found: 25 Apr 2021 | Rating: 90/100
Huber's failure to disclose. Huber failed to disclose alternate treatments for Grenadier's disease and the risks associated with the treatment Carillon received. Huber also failed to disclose his own interest in Carillon's unusual white blood cells. This essay will explore potential actions against Huber, then consider potential causes of action relating to the Hydrozap machine and Demona's contract with Carillon. Huber had a legal duty to disclose alternate treatments. Huber did not inform Carillon about the "CIA" treatment. However, that Huber could not have profited from this course of treatment is not a defense against adequately informing Carillon of his options. Because the average person does not have the requisite knowledge to fully understand what is involved in a course of treatment, it is incumbent upon his doctor to provide information "with which to reach an intelligent decision.
Found: 14 Apr 2021 | Rating: 87/100
Sample Answer Torts 98 -- Prof. Boyle
Carillon's first course of the Hydrozap treatment resulted in this debilitating side effect. This is extremely significant for Carillon because he is a professional beach volleyball player. Without fast twitch muscles, Carillon's career is over. Huber's defense is that this side effect is very rare and of little negative consequence for most patients. The Canterbury court rejected a subjective standard of causation regarding whether a patient would elect not to undergo the treatment if he knew of the potential side effect. To ask Carillon now whether he would have had the treatment or not would certainly produce a "No" answer. A better method is to determine this question "in terms of what a prudent person in the patient's position would have decided if suitably informed of all the risks bearing significance.
Found: 14 Apr 2021 | Rating: 86/100
Torts - Guide For 1Ls - LibGuides At John Marshall Law School
A prudent person in his position would choose to treat the symptoms of the disease with antibiotics, or, had he been informed, pay for the more expensive treatment that did not have the devastating side effect. A physician has the defense to a claim of failure to disclose if the patient cannot give consent due to emergency, unconsciousness, etc. Huber may employ the later defense. However, the courts narrowly circumscribe this exception. Huber's argument that Carillon would have declined the treatment to his detriment because of the potential side effect fails. In Carillon's position, the side effect was of tremendous importance. Furthermore, an alternate treatment existed; Carillon could have received treatment for the disease without risking his fast twitch muscles. Additionally, Huber had a duty to disclose his own interest in Carillon's unusual white blood cells.
Found: 16 Apr 2021 | Rating: 90/100
Instead, Huber said that Carillon was to return for "follow up tests. The Moore court declined to recognize a claim of conversion regarding a patient's proprietary interest in his spleen and bodily fluids. The majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Moore extensively discussed the legal and public policy interests at stake in recognizing such a claim. This essay will not restate all of those arguments, but suggest how Carillon's case is distinguishable from Moore. The Moore court held that California statutes relating to the disposition of excised cells governed the case. Connecticut may have different statutory law regarding an individual's ownership of bodily products. Furthermore, the heart of the dispute in Moore was the doctor's taking of parts of the patient's spleen. There are several reasons Carillon's property interest in his blood is very different from a patient's interest in a nonrenewable organ.
Found: 11 Apr 2021 | Rating: 85/100
Torts Study Aids | William & Mary Law School
The state has valid reasons for prohibiting an individual from selling a nonrenewable organ--there are some things that simply should not be commodified and some may sell organs to great personal detriment. Blood is a saleable commodity. Every day thousands of Americans legally sell their plasma. Furthermore, individuals are allowed to sell sperm and eggs. Carillon's unusual white blood cells are far more like plasma sold to blood banks and sperm and eggs sold to fertility clinics, than, for example, an enlarged spleen or sold kidney. This does not eliminate the hard questions raised in Moore, such as the strict liability implications of conversion for medical products.
Found: 15 Apr 2021 | Rating: 93/100
Exam Archive - Eric E. Johnson
It does, however, provide a more compelling case for recognizing the tort of conversion for Carillon's blood. The measurement of damages is also a difficult question. The profitable blood plasma products Huber developed were not taken directly from Carillon. Carillon cannot be entitled to recover the full value of these products. However, he should have been able to negotiate some compensation for the use of his unusual white blood cells. Because Huber failed to disclose his personal interest in Carillon's blood, this negotiation was not possible. Carillon may claim that Dr. Huber falsely imprisoned him. Under the pretense of "follow up tests" Carillon visited Huber's office a second time. During this visit Huber did nothing to address Carillon's disease; he only appropriated Carillon's bodily fluids for his own purposes. Huber will argue that Carillon was not really imprisoned; he may have left at any time.
Found: 1 Apr 2021 | Rating: 91/100
Concentrate Questions And Answers Tort Law: Law Q&A Revision And Study Guide - Law Trove
Furthermore, on the authority of Herd v. Weardale Huber will argue that Carillon consented to his time at the office. However, Carillon was there under false pretense. Carillon believed that in order to fight his disease he had to visit the doctor and submit to extraction of bodily substances. Whether Carillon has a winnable claim will hinge on the court's conception of false imprisonment. If the court takes a narrow perspective--false imprisonment is conscious confinement--Carillon will lose. If the court adopts a broader perspective--false imprisonment is the wrongful restriction of liberty and the freedom of movement--Carillon's chances are better.
Found: 19 Apr 2021 | Rating: 92/100
No comments:
Post a Comment