Article contents
The Application of Reasonable Prudence to Medical Malpractice Litigation: The Precursor to Strict Liability?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 April 2021
Extract
Recently, the California Supreme Court found an established medical standard of care to be inadequate and replaced it with a judicially constructed medical standard of practice premised on the rule of reasonable prudence. California thus joined the State of Washington and became the second state to sanction the invocation of reasonable prudence in the fashioning of judicially formulated medical standards of care.
As this article will illustrate, the Supreme Courts of California and Washington are, in a narrow class of cases, imposing a greater duty of care on physicians than previously mandated by the medical profession. These courts are impliedly stating that although the physicians complied with the particular standard of care within their profession, they could have better protected their patients had they pursued a more prudent course of conduct. Moreover, in choosing between the innocent and damaged plaintiff and the equally innocent and compliant physician, the courts have reasoned that the plaintiff should not have to bear the risk of loss and, consequently, have imposed liability on the physician.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981
References
- 3
- Cited by