Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123907366> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 70 of
70
with 100 items per page.
- W3123907366 endingPage "31" @default.
- W3123907366 startingPage "9" @default.
- W3123907366 abstract "Abstract The law of negligence is designed to apply uniformly across contexts. Whether dealing with a car accident, medical malpractice, or a slip-and-fall case, tort law consistently asks whether a defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether he exercised reasonable care in fulfilling that duty. Tort law defenses, too, are generally understood to be context-neutral. The doctrines of comparative negligence and assumption of risk should not vary depending on the precise circumstances surrounding an injury. And yet, there is a peculiar inconsistency in how some defenses are applied in cases of medical malpractice as compared to cases outside the health care context. Specifically, reliance on secondary implied assumption of risk seems to require greater knowledge on the part of the plaintiff in malpractice cases than in other contexts. In recreational sport cases, for example, a plaintiff will be denied recovery if he voluntarily encountered a known risk of physical injury – regardless of whether he understood that the risk was the result of a defendant’s negligence. In contrast, in medical malpractice cases, most people’s intuition is that the plaintiff’s recovery should be denied or limited only if he had knowledge of the risk of physical injury as well as the fact that this risk was created by a negligent defendant. There is no clear doctrinal explanation for this distinction. This article describes this conundrum and poses the question of whether and when such context-specific adjustments might be doctrinally justified. Ultimately, the most likely explanation is grounded in medical exceptionalist claims that the unique nature of health care justifies a more flexible and nuanced application of legal doctrine. While this conclusion may be unsatisfying to some, it presents a valuable opportunity to revisit debates about the supposed context-neutrality of tort law." @default.
- W3123907366 created "2021-02-01" @default.
- W3123907366 creator A5000959575 @default.
- W3123907366 date "2019-05-27" @default.
- W3123907366 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
- W3123907366 title "Defining The Known Risk: Context-Sensitivity In Tort Law Defenses" @default.
- W3123907366 doi "https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2019-0003" @default.
- W3123907366 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
- W3123907366 type Work @default.
- W3123907366 sameAs 3123907366 @default.
- W3123907366 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W3123907366 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W3123907366 hasAuthorship W3123907366A5000959575 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C166151441 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C2776218876 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C2776798817 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C2779517930 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C2780183814 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C514090530 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C71745522 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C162324750 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C166151441 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C166957645 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C17744445 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C190253527 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C199539241 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C200635333 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C2776218876 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C2776798817 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C2777834853 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C2779103253 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C2779343474 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C2779517930 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C2780183814 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C514090530 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C71745522 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C95457728 @default.
- W3123907366 hasConceptScore W3123907366C97460637 @default.
- W3123907366 hasIssue "1" @default.
- W3123907366 hasLocation W31239073661 @default.
- W3123907366 hasOpenAccess W3123907366 @default.
- W3123907366 hasPrimaryLocation W31239073661 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W2286394813 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W2463738660 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W2464454343 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W2939039929 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W2988908787 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W3121839961 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W3123907366 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W3195403926 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W4235066060 @default.
- W3123907366 hasRelatedWork W60401406 @default.
- W3123907366 hasVolume "12" @default.
- W3123907366 isParatext "false" @default.
- W3123907366 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W3123907366 magId "3123907366" @default.
- W3123907366 workType "article" @default.