| 词条 | Cahoon v. Cummings |
| 释义 |
| name = Cahoon v. Cummings | court = Supreme Court of Indiana | image = Seal of the Indiana Supreme Court.jpg | imagesize = 125px | caption = Seal of the Supreme Court of Indiana | full name = Jeffrey S. Cahoon, M.D. and Shari A. Kohne and Edward L. Kennedy, Co-Executors of the Estate of Robert W. Kohne, M.D. v. Glessie Joann Cummings, wife of the deceased, William T. Cummings | date decided = September 1, 2000 | citations = 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000) 15 Ohio St.3d 384 | transcripts = | judges = Randall Shepard Brent Dickson Frank Sullivan, Jr. Theodore Boehm Robert Rucker | prior actions = 715 N.E.2d 1, 9 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) | subsequent actions = | opinions = Unanimous opinion by Boehm | keywords = }}Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana that adopted the loss of a chance doctrine for tort liability.[1] DecisionThe plaintiff brought a wrongful death action alleging that the defendant doctor negligently failed to diagnose the decedent's esophageal cancer. The trial court instructed the jury to find the defendant liable if the failure to diagnose was deemed a substantial factor in the decedent's death. The jury found for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.[2] The Supreme Court of Indiana eschewed the substantial factor test for liability because it would unfairly hold doctors liable for the patient's underlying disease and all of the damage it caused. Instead the court adopted the loss of a chance doctrine,which allows recovery if negligence results in a substantially higher probability that harm to the plaintiff will result, even if the probability of harm is already over fifty percent. The court held that the defendants should only be held liable in proportion to the increased chance of harm caused by their negligence, and the case was remanded for a new trial.[3] ImpactCahoon places Indiana among 24 other states that recognize the loss of a chance doctrine, which has been criticized for unpredictably increasing medical malpractice liability.[4]References1. ^Henderson, J.A. et al. The Torts Process, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2007, p. 263 2. ^Henderson, p. 263 3. ^Henderson, p. 264 4. ^Loss of chance in medical malpractice: a look at recent developments: the growing acceptance of this doctrine raises difficult public policy issues, as well as concerns for the limits of medical professional liability. Defense Counsel Journal. 1 July 2003. External links
6 : Negligence case law|United States tort case law|2000 in United States case law|Indiana state case law|2000 in Indiana|Medical malpractice |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。