California Supreme Court to decide if retailers should treat cardiac arrest with defibrillators
Posted on 05/06/2014 @ 06:18 PM
The California Supreme Court today is taking up the issue of whether large retailers in the state are required to have defibrillators ready to use on customers experiencing cardiac arrest.
The lawsuit was filed against Target by the mother and brother of Mary Ann Verdugo, who died of “sudden cardiac arrest” in 2008 while shopping at a Target store in Pico Rivera, California.
Target and its supporters argue that requiring retailers to place defibrillators on their property is costly and unfair, opening them up to liability in other medical emergencies. Defibrillator supporters counter that cardiac arrest is different from other emergencies and the device is inexpensive and easy enough to use that it should be mandatory in all large retail stores.
CJAC, joined by the California Chamber of Commerce, filed an amicus brief in November on the side of Target, arguing that the California Legislature has determined that retail stores owe no duty to keep and maintain a defibrillator on their premises. The extent of a property owner’s common law duty to come to the aid of a sick or injured patron is limited to promptly summoning emergency services, not providing them directly. Click here to read the brief.
The Court has 90 days to make a ruling on this case.
To read more, click here.
Should animals have the right to sue, too?
Posted on 04/24/2014 @ 10:00 AM
Middle-aged Tommy sits in confinement, day after day, with little contact with the outside world. Does Tommy have the right to sue his captors for his mistreatment and release? Yes, if Tommy were human.
Tommy is a retired circus chimp living in a trailer park in a too-small cage, in a darkened shed. Tommy is also at the center of a controversy – should animals have a right to sue, too?
In a recent New York Times article, writer Charles Siebert examines the ethics and ramifications of allowing such cases to reach a courtroom. To read the story, click here.
Recent Opinion in Wall Street Journal Draws Attention to MICRA Initiative
Posted on 04/17/2014 @ 10:00 AM
The Wall Street Journal recently published an opinion discussing the MICRA ballot initiative and its potential effects on the current state of the California medical climate.
The opinion outlines the historical aspects of MICRA before expanding on the possible implications of a increase in the cap limit. The economic effects of such a change were researched by The Berkeley Research Group, which found that a passed MICRA initiative could have a large impact on patients as an increased cap would increase malpractice premiums by between 16% and 38%.
To read the opinion piece, click here.
California Tops the List of 5 Riskiest States for Employee Lawsuits
Posted on 04/03/2014 @ 10:00 AM
California, Illinois, Alabama and Mississippi – along with the District of Columbia, are the top five riskiest places in the country for employee lawsuits according to study of employment practices litigation (EPL) data by specialist insurer Hiscox.
The report also reveals that California has the most frequent incidences of EPL charges in the country, with a 42 percent higher chance of being sued by an employee for establishments with at least 10 employees over the national average.
To read , click here.
Trial Attorneys Blamed for Corruption Across the Country
Posted on 03/14/2014 @ 10:00 AM
Paul Barrett at Texans for Lawsuit Reform recently discovered that notable trial attorneys have been caught corrupting evidence in their cases in order to maximize personal profit.
Barrett points to notable cases involving BP and Dole, but claims that even with these abuses, there is little chance Congress will enact tort reform anytime soon.
To read about the abuses and problems surrounding the national tort climate, click here.