疏忽导致死亡复习过程.doc

疏忽导致死亡

精品文档
Zuchowicz v. U.S. (2nd Cir. 1998)
Posted on October 19, 2016  |  Torts  |  Tags:  Torts Case Briefs, Torts Law
Definitions:
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – logical fallacy that one former thing caused the latter
Procedural History: This action arose under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) based on CT law. Defendant admitted doctors negligently directed plaintiff to ingest double the maximum dosage of Danocrine, and after her death, her husband continued the pending case on behalf of her estate. After a bench trial, the court awarded damages, and the Court of Appeals affirms.
Facts: Mrs. Zuchowiczwas prescribed Danocrine for endometriosis in twice the maximum amount for a month, continued taking the drug at the maximum amount for two more months and then ceased taking the drug. Shortly after, she was diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension, a rare and fatal condition. She was on the list for a lung transplant, but became pregnant, making her ineligible for a transplant and exacerbating her condition. One month after giving birth, she died.
Issue: Did the action for which the defendant is responsible, cause, in a legal sense, the harm which the plaintiff suffered?
Rules: The Federal Rules of Evidence permit the trial judge discretion in admitting expert testimony.
There is a requirement that the defendant’s behavior was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injury, and the plaintiff must show: traffic issues
1. That the defendant’s negligent act or omission was a but for cause of the injury
2. That the negligence was causally linked to the harm
3. That the defendant’s negligent act or omission was proximate（最接近的） to the resulting injury
If:
1. A negligent act was deemed wrongful because that act increased the chances that a particular type of accident would occur, and
2. A mishap of that very sort did happen; this is enough to support a finding by the tirer of fact that the negligent behavior caused the harm.
Application: Because of the rarity of PPH and the fact that so few have ever been prescribed such a high dose of Donocrine, it is difficult to find other similar cases that provide evidence that the overdose was what caused her onset of PPH.
Conclusion: Although it is not ‘definite’ that the overdose caused the PPH, negligently giving a patient an overdose of a drug is wrongful because it often leads to increased chances of unexpected medical conditions, and a rare, unexpected medical condition indeed resulted, this is enough to show that the negligent behavior caused the harm.

Zuchowicz v.US（2nd Cir.1998）
发表于 2016年10月19日  |  Torts   | 标签：  Torts Case Briefs，Torts Law
定义：
事后，ergo propter hoc -前一件事导致后一件事的逻辑谬误
程序历史：这一行动是根据“联邦侵权索赔法”(FTCA)根据CT法提出的。被告承认，医生疏忽地指示原告摄入的剂量是丹格拉辛的最高剂量的两倍，在她死后，她的丈夫代表她的财产继续审理未决案件。经过法庭审判后，法院判给了损害赔偿，上诉法院确认了这一点。
事实：对子宫内膜异位症，祖乔维兹夫人给她开了两倍的药，为期一个月，连续服药最多两个月，然后停止服用。不久，她被诊断为原发性肺动脉高压，这是一种罕见且致命的疾病。她在肺移植的名单上，但怀孕了，使她没有资格进行移植，并使她的病情恶化。分娩一个月后，她就死了。问题：被告所负责的行为，在法律意义上是否导致原告遭受的损害？
规则：联邦证据规则允许初审法官在接受专家证词时有自由裁量权。
要求被告的行为是导致原告受伤的重要因素，原告必须表明：
1。被告过失行为或者不作为是损害的原因
2。疏忽与伤害有因果联系。
3。被告的过失行为或疏忽接近造成的损害
如果：
1. 疏忽行为被认为是不法行为，因为该行为增加了特定类型事故发生的可能性，并且
2. 确实发生了这种事情的不幸事件，这足以支持一个事实，即疏忽行为造成了伤害。
应用：由于PPH的罕见性以及很少有人开过如此高剂量的Donocrine这一事实，很难找到其他类似的病例，证明过量服用是导致PPH发病的原因。
结论：虽然过量引起PPH并不是“明确的”，但是过量给予患者过量服用药物是不正确的，因为它往往导致意外医疗条件的机会增加，并且确实导致罕见的，意外的医疗状况，足以表明疏忽行为造成了伤害。

收集于网络，如有侵权请联系管理员删除