Calendar of Events
Latest News
Amicus Curiae Briefs
Annual Meeting
Corporate Counsel College
International Corporate Counsel College
Legislative Rapid Response
Midyear Meeting
Professional Liability Roundtable
Regional Meetings
Trial Academy
Webinars
Defense Counsel Journal
Committee Newsletters
CLE Articles
Browse & Search Publications
Legal Writing Contest
Online Store
FAQ
Member Accolades and Courtroom Successes
Benefits of Membership
Member Requirements and Nomination Process
Membership Nomination Form
Membership Sponsor Form
About the Association
Commitment to Diversity
IADC Headquarters
Board of Directors
IADC Staff
Committees
IADC Sponsors
Home
:
News & Events
:
Courtroom Success: Mark W. Murphy; Emily G. Coughlin; Holly M. Polglase; and Christopher A. Kenney
Print Page
Email Page
Courtroom Success: Mark W. Murphy; Emily G. Coughlin; Holly M. Polglase; and Christopher A. Kenney
July 15, 2009
IADC members
Mark W. Murphy
of Litchfield Cavo LLP;
Emily G. Coughlin
of Ryan, Coughlin & Betke, LLP;
Holly M. Polglase
of Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy; and
Christopher A. Kenney
of Kenney & Sams PC are pleased to report the defense victory in
Leavitt v. Brockton Hospital,
a decision recently issued by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The Supreme Judicial Court's decision in
Leavitt
imposes a significant limitation on the potential tort liability of medical providers to nonpatient third parties. The Court held that a medical provider does not owe a duty to control a patient in order to prevent the patient from causing harm to a third party. In holding that medical providers do not owe a duty to a third person to control a patient (excluding a patient of a mental health professional), the court reasoned that it would not impose such an affirmative duty in the absence of a special relationship. And the court reasoned that it would not recognize a special relationship between a medical provider and a patient because it falls outside of those limited categories in which the court (and Restatement) have recognized special relationships in the past, and a medicated patient does not have "dangerous propensities" warranting the recognition of a special relationship.
/a>
© 2010 International Association of Defense Counsel. All Rights Reserved. | Site Design and Developement by
americaneagle.com
Site Map
|
Privacy Policy
|
Terms of Use