Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Editor's note: Last month, the authors began discussion of a trend in New Jersey case law that, over the past several decades, has been moving that state toward the expansion of hospital liability through the continuous erosion of the statutorily imposed $250,000 charitable immunity cap. They continue their analysis of this trend and its consequences herein.
In Basil v. Wolf, 193 N.J. 38 (2007), New Jersey's Supreme Court rejected a claim for imputed liability against an insurer that had hired a physician to perform an independent medical examination. In doing so, however, the court explained that apparent authority imposes liability on the principal “not as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship but rather because of the actions of a principal or employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or the authority exists.” The key question is “whether the principal has by his voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular business, is justified in presuming that such agent has the authority to perform the particular act in question.” Thus, in the context of a hospital and its independent contractor physicians, there would be apparent authority “in those cases where it can be shown that a hospital, by its actions, has held out a particular physician as its agent and/or employee and that a patient has accepted treatment from that physician in the reasonable belief that it is being rendered in behalf of the hospital.” Basil, 193 N.J. at 67 (citations omitted).
Cordero v. Christ Hospital
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.