Ramberg v. Morgan
Case Summary More to the point, the question became whether or not Ramberg would have died had Miller diagnoses the patient correctly. Upon examination of the court, it was found that such injuries (such as the one sustained by Ramberg) are quite often (if not usually) fatal and the chance of Ramberg surviving would little to none even if he had been rushed to a hospital right away. Again, the question became whether Ramberg would have lived had Morgan concluded the proper diagnosis. A prior court suggested he erred and awarded about $5,000 (in 1920's money) to the plaintiff.
Duty to Care
In terms of the Doctrine of Respondent Superior, the employer of the sued doctor would be or could be liable for the actions or inactions of Dr. Morgan. In this case, the police agency would be the party that is liable. In this matter, Mr. Ramberg was struck by a car and his body was thrown a couple dozen feet. The driver of the car that struck Ramberg is the person who called police. Upon showing up, there was only one of blood on the decedent but there was no sign of any fractures or other issues. Indeed, he deemed the man to simply being intoxicated. After the examination concluded, Ramberg was put in a cell and was basically ignored. He acted very much like a drunk would act. However, as it turns out he had pressure/bleeding in his brain and it eventually killed him.
Elements of Negligence
The question to be answered for the case was whether Miller was negligent in his wrong
...
Morgan obviously had a duty to care and he did precisely that. He showed up when called (and that was an hour after the accident), he did a thorough examination and he came to a conclusion that he believed to be correct based on the evidence he could verify and what he could observe.
Breach of Duty
The police department that temporarily held him (even when someone tried to take him home at one point) may have had some neglect involved relating to Mr. Ramberg but the outcome for the police holding him probably would have been the same as it was for Morgan. Morgan thought he was drunk so the police treated him like a drunk. The police were not qualified to make a different diagnosis.…
References
CaseText. (2015). Casetext.com. Retrieved 13 June 2015, from https://casetext.com/case/ramberg-v-morgan
"Cause" is the next element needed for a successful negligence suit, but this is probably the most intricate element involved. The first aspect of "cause" is known as "cause in fact," and involves demonstrating that the defendant's actions, or lack of action, actually caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff. For example, the patient in the case actually suffered paralysis as a result of the surgery. It must be pointed
Sanders's injury was more as a result of the "hard falls" of softball, rather than any sort of "rough treatment" that occurred as a result of improper supervision. The "rough treatment" category of head-butting football players can easily be distinguished from the more passive interaction between sliding ankle and first base. When the facts of a case clearly demonstrate improper supervision of "rough treatment" athletic activity, the courts have had
This being the case, the liability insurance company will pass the suit to their attorney, who will then be responsible for filling a written answer. The next phase in the litigation process will be a series of discovery, where each side will be given the opportunity to research the case by asking each other questions and demanding specified documents. Based on this gathered information, the liability insurance company again will
Negligence a) Elements of Negligence Your son sustains a deep laceration on the leg, and you decide to bring him to the hospital for the doctor to perform the routine check-up and at the same time dress the wound. You stop the bleeding, disinfect, and gauze the wound before leaving the house. At the hospital, the doctor, in a rush, performs the regular check-up, and then embarks on addressing the wound. He
The tort for companionship and society is, by law, only applicable to persons and not to animals, regardless of their regard as companion animals or not. As for the trespass tort, it was found that insufficient evidence was available to prove wrongdoing by the plaintiffs. There was no evidence to suggest how the dogs entered the plaintiffs' property. Evidence of neglect was not sufficient, according to the court. Analysis I was somewhat
Negligence Tort Case Review In 1981 Dula McCarty, while staying at the Pheasant Run Lodge, was attacked in her room. The intruder had gained access to her room through a sliding glass door that was lock but had a small safety chain attached. While Mrs. McCarty was out for dinner the intruder, who was never caught, pried open the sliding door, cut through the small chain, entered the room and attacked
