[CLC-Discussion] Negligence: Standard of care: Proof: Qualitycontrol program

[George R. Truitt]

May be of interest by analogy   http://www.dri.org/DRI/course-materials/2012-Nursing/pdfs/14_Vance.pdf

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:48 PM, "Bruce Partington" <bparting at cphlaw.com<mailto:bparting at cphlaw.com>> wrote:

The uncertainty that follows a Supreme Court opinion that effects a substantial change in the law . . .
Interesting because if your defendant is not a professional, then the standard of care would typically be that of a reasonable contractor/subcontractor/construction manager (setting aside the issue of whether construction managers might or might not fall into the “professional” class – insurers seem to think so).  So the issue is whether or not one can (contractually or otherwise) set a standard of care which may be different from the “reasonable person” standard.
I think the answer is probably yes, and you would might look to cases where, for example, Company X has a policy that their drivers never exceed the speed limit, but in the accident, the driver for Company X was exceeding the speed limit.  Or a hospital has a certain standard  . . .
I think the answer is cleaner if the QC standard is a contractual obligation.   There’s a fair argument that failing to meet a contractual standard would be negligence, especially since the ELR is gone. . . .

Bruce D. Partington
Clark Partington
bpartington at cphlaw.com<mailto:bpartington at cphlaw.com>
Direct: 850-432-1399
Fax: 850-432-7340
*Board Certified in Construction Law

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by the law firm of Clark Partington Hart Larry Bond & Stackhouse, and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Richard A. Burt
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:21 PM
To: 'clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>'
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Negligence: Standard of care: Proof: Qualitycontrol program

Everyone,
I would like any thoughts you may have regarding the following related issues:

(i)                 Is a defendant’s own quality control program admissible to prove the standard of care in a negligence case brought against him?

(ii)               Is the failure of a defendant to follow his own quality control program admissible to prove his negligence (i.e., violation of the standard of care)?
I will greatly appreciate any comment and/or legal authority you may have as to these issues.
Thanks!
Dick
Richard A. Burt, Esq.
BURT & BURT
420 S. Orange Ave., Suite 220
Orlando, FL  32801
(386) 252-2090 (office)
(866) 240-7043 (facsimile)
dick at burt-burt.com<mailto:dick at burt-burt.com>
www.burt-burt.com<http://www.burt-burt.com/>


_______________________________________________
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
Confidentiality Notice: This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. It is legally privileged (including attachments) and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20140116/27963631/attachment.html>