Source: https://stus.com/Loss-of-Chance-In-Medical-Malpractice-cartoon-cto0044
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:51:09+00:00

Document:
Matsuyama v. Birnbaum. When a physician's negligence reduces or eliminates the patient's prospects for achieving a more favorable medical outcome, the physician has harmed the patient and is liable for damages. Wrongful Death Action.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker; In maritime cases, compensatory and punitive damages should be limited to a 1:1 ratio.; malice; remittur.
Zellmer v. Zellmer; Because a stepparent standing in loco parentis has a common law duty to support and educate a child to the same extent as a biological parent, he or she is also entitled to parental immunity for negligent supervision.
Bjorndal v. Weitman; person negligent if person fails exercise reasonable care measured by what reasonable person acting with ordinary prudence would do under the same or similar circumstances including emergencies.
Puckrein v. ATI Transport, Inc; to prevail against principal for hiring incompetent contractor plaintiff must show contractor was incompetent, unskilled perform job for which hired, the harm arose due to incompetence and principal knew incompetent.
Merck & Co. v. Garza; Courts should allow a party to present the best available evidence and only then should determine from a totality of the evidence, considering all factors, whether there is legally sufficient evidence to support judgment.
Michalson v. Nutting. A landowner is at liberty to use his land, and all of it, to grow trees and is not liable for damage caused by the natural and reasonable extensions of boughs and penetration of roots over and into adjoining property.
Pafford v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, a plaintiff may demonstrate causation only by proving that a vaccine was both a but-for cause and a substantial factor in causing her injury.
In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. If reasonably foreseen that an act may cause harm, tortfeasor is liable for damages, regardless of whether type and extent of damages are reasonably foreseeable.
Catron v. Lewis; an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress must show either (1) reasonably foreseeably "bystander" victim based on an intimate familial relationship, or (2) a "direct victim" because was within the zone of danger.
Estate of Cilley v. Lane; Maine law does not impose a general obligation to protect others from harm not created by the actor.
Thompson v. Kaczinski; a actor's liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious. The scope of liability issue is fact intensive as to foreseeability.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.