Source: https://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/documents/00me63wa.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:10:03+00:00

Document:
Majority:CLIFFORD, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.
Concurring:WATHEN, C.J., and RUDMAN, and DANA, JJ.
with an information sheet which described the effects of Melphalen.
Chlorambucil, which means that any side effects from it last longer.
the doctor, Walter waited a few days before attempting to contact Dr. Ross.
Dr. Ross in four weeks and blood tests sometime before that appointment.
was unable to eat because of bleeding gums and an infection in her mouth.
within ten feet of her.
motion was denied.  The jury awarded Walter $550,000 in damages.
in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion."  Lewis v.
reduce the extent of her injuries.
a factual matter.  See Larson v. A.T.S.I., 859 P.2d 273, 276 (Colo. App. 1993).
duty was breached), there was no judicial admission of negligence.
reliable safeguards" must be taken.  Id. at 58, 77 A. at 408.
with Alkeran, which is Melphalen.  Lovin said that he made a "serious error"
have no reason to suspect that she was given the wrong drug.
could not have found that Wal-Mart was not negligent.
which Wal-Mart provided Walter erroneously, caused damage to her body.
Although she had lymphoma, the disease did not limit her functioning.
the issue, the issue is then determined as a matter of law."  Laferriere v.
would give rise to the defense of contributory negligence.  See 14 M.R.S.A.
defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover damages.  See id.
failure to discover Wal-Mart's error.
goes to mitigation of damages and not comparative negligence.
753-54 (1915); see also Harvey v. Mid-Coast Hosp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 32, 37 (D.
plaintiff failed to keep a follow-up appointment with the defendant doctor.
See Hauser v. Bhatnager, 537 A.2d 599, 601 (Me. 1988).
failed to mitigate or avoid consequences.
inaction was so substantial as to allow a verdict for the defendant.
the bruising appeared only a few days before Walter attempted to reach Dr.
verdict for Walter on liability.
blood test as to the failure to report immediately the bruising and skin rash.
standard of care.  It points out that Lovin was not designated as an expert.
check for the wrong drug is negligence.
swayed by any bias or predisposition towards one party or the other.
it should consider how much money professional basketball players are paid.
so that it would punish Wal-Mart by the amount of damages.
684 (Me. 1972); see Michaud, 390 A.2d at 536.
[¶36]  Walter's total medical bills and expenses equalled $71,042.63.
$479,000 of Walter's recovery is in compensation for her pain and suffering.
character . . . ."  Michaud, 390 A.2d at 537 (quoting Fotter v. Butler, 145 Me.
266, 273, 75 A.2d 160, 164 (1950)).
making their arguments for the record outside of the presence of the judge.
that the jury had sent "a message about the duty and care of a pharmacist."
or prejudice" and "shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict"
ruling by the judge in this proceeding to convey judicial bias or prejudice.
biased against Wal-Mart in this case.
WATHEN, C.J., with whom RUDMAN and DANA, JJ., join, concurring.
affirm the judgment on the basis that defense counsel admitted liability.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.