Saturday, November 19, 2016
Podcast: Challenges of self driving cars
The program Case in Point (Univ. of Pennsylvania Law School) has posted a new 20 minute podcast on "Challenges of Self-Driving Vehicles."
Friday, November 11, 2016
Utah Supreme Court holds a person can sue herself under wrongful death and survival stautes
I recently read in the Legal Profession blog a summary of a recent decision out of the Utah Supreme Court with the oddest fact pattern I have seen all year, which provides an interesting discussion of issues related to the two courses I teach: Torts and Professional Responsbility. The case is Bagley v. Bagley and you can read the full opinion here.
Here are the facts of the case: One day back in 2011, Ms. Barbara Bagley, the common law wife of Bradley Vom Baur, lost control of the car in which they were traveling. Mr. Vom Baur was thrown from the vehicle and sustained severe injuries due to which he died ten days later. Eventually, in her dual capacities as sole heir and personal representative of the estate of Bradley Vom Baur, Ms Bagley sued herself in an attempt to compel her insurance company to indemnify her. Ms. Bagley was, therefore, the plaintiff and the named defendant in the lawsuit at the same time.
Plaintiff Bagley brought her first cause of action pursuant to Utah’s wrongful death statute, alleging that Defendant Bagley (herself) negligently caused Mr. Vom Baur’s death, thereby depriving his sole heir (ie, Plaintiff Bagley herself) of Mr. Vom Baur’s love, companionship, society, comfort, care, protections, financial support, pleasure, and affection.
Plaintiff Bagley brought her second cause of action as the personal representative of Bradley Vom Baur‘s estate pursuant to Utah’s survival action statute, alleging that Defendant Bagley negligently caused Mr. Vom Baur to experience pain and suffering prior to his death, which entitles Mr. Vom Baur’s estate to damages such as funeral expenses and medical bills.
The trial court granted a motion to dismiss, but the court of appeals reversed.
On these facts and based on the Court’s interpretation of the plain language of the two statutes, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and held that the “wrongful death and survival action statutes permit a person acting in the legal capacity of an heir or personal representative to sue him or herself in an individual capacity for negligently causing a decedent’s death or injury.”
In the case before the Supreme Court Ms. Bagley as plaintiff and Ms. Bagley as defendant were represented by a different law firms, but the Utah Defense Lawyers Association filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the case would have negative consequences on the practice of law and that it presented impermissible conflict of interest. Among other things, the Association argued that the case “distorts the attorney-client relationship by creating a concurrent conflict of interest because “defense counsel’s representation of the client as the defendant is directly adverse to defense counsel’s representation of that same person who is also the plaintiff.” It also argued that the conflict would affect an attorney’s ability to communicate with his or her client, because, among other things, the client knows that anything she reveals will be used against her. Finally, the Association also raised concerns about jury confusion and the ability of an attorney to cross-examine his own client.
The Court admitted that the arguments “are not without merit” but dismissed them holding that the situation did not create a concurrent conflict because plaintiffs and defendant were acting “in different legal roles.” (See footnote 37 of the opinion)
You can read the full opinion here.
Here are the facts of the case: One day back in 2011, Ms. Barbara Bagley, the common law wife of Bradley Vom Baur, lost control of the car in which they were traveling. Mr. Vom Baur was thrown from the vehicle and sustained severe injuries due to which he died ten days later. Eventually, in her dual capacities as sole heir and personal representative of the estate of Bradley Vom Baur, Ms Bagley sued herself in an attempt to compel her insurance company to indemnify her. Ms. Bagley was, therefore, the plaintiff and the named defendant in the lawsuit at the same time.
Plaintiff Bagley brought her first cause of action pursuant to Utah’s wrongful death statute, alleging that Defendant Bagley (herself) negligently caused Mr. Vom Baur’s death, thereby depriving his sole heir (ie, Plaintiff Bagley herself) of Mr. Vom Baur’s love, companionship, society, comfort, care, protections, financial support, pleasure, and affection.
Plaintiff Bagley brought her second cause of action as the personal representative of Bradley Vom Baur‘s estate pursuant to Utah’s survival action statute, alleging that Defendant Bagley negligently caused Mr. Vom Baur to experience pain and suffering prior to his death, which entitles Mr. Vom Baur’s estate to damages such as funeral expenses and medical bills.
The trial court granted a motion to dismiss, but the court of appeals reversed.
On these facts and based on the Court’s interpretation of the plain language of the two statutes, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and held that the “wrongful death and survival action statutes permit a person acting in the legal capacity of an heir or personal representative to sue him or herself in an individual capacity for negligently causing a decedent’s death or injury.”
In the case before the Supreme Court Ms. Bagley as plaintiff and Ms. Bagley as defendant were represented by a different law firms, but the Utah Defense Lawyers Association filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the case would have negative consequences on the practice of law and that it presented impermissible conflict of interest. Among other things, the Association argued that the case “distorts the attorney-client relationship by creating a concurrent conflict of interest because “defense counsel’s representation of the client as the defendant is directly adverse to defense counsel’s representation of that same person who is also the plaintiff.” It also argued that the conflict would affect an attorney’s ability to communicate with his or her client, because, among other things, the client knows that anything she reveals will be used against her. Finally, the Association also raised concerns about jury confusion and the ability of an attorney to cross-examine his own client.
The Court admitted that the arguments “are not without merit” but dismissed them holding that the situation did not create a concurrent conflict because plaintiffs and defendant were acting “in different legal roles.” (See footnote 37 of the opinion)
You can read the full opinion here.
Friday, November 4, 2016
Hospital System allegedly tries to force possible patients to give up right to sue or they will be charged more for services; and residents may be forced to work longer hours
NPR is reporting today that San Francisco area companies are complaining that Sutter Health is strong-arming them into a contract that would help the hospital system secure its power over prices and potentially raise the cost of medical care for their employees in the future.
The report says taht dozens of companies have received a letter asking them to waive their rights to sue Sutter. If they don't, the companies' employees who get care through Sutter's network of hospitals, doctors and medical services will no longer have access to discounted in-network prices.
Meanwhile, in a separate story, the group that sets the rules for medical residents has proposed changing the rule that says that interns, doctors in their first year of on-the-job training after finishing medical school, can work no more than 16 hours without a break. This rule was adopted many years ago to minimize the chances the rookie doctors would make mistakes while fatigued. The new proposed rule would let these new doctors work for as many as 28 hours at a stretch.
What do you think would be the cumulative effect of these two events?
Meanwhile, in a separate story, the group that sets the rules for medical residents has proposed changing the rule that says that interns, doctors in their first year of on-the-job training after finishing medical school, can work no more than 16 hours without a break. This rule was adopted many years ago to minimize the chances the rookie doctors would make mistakes while fatigued. The new proposed rule would let these new doctors work for as many as 28 hours at a stretch.
What do you think would be the cumulative effect of these two events?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)