Rogers v. Whitaker

The High Court of Australia affirmed the Supreme Court of New South Wales' determination that a doctor has a duty to warn a patient of any material risk involved in a proposed treatment. A risk is considered material if a reasonable person in similar circumstances would attach significance to the risk, or if the doctor is, or should be, cognizant that the particular patient would express concern about the risk. The trial court overruled the precept that a doctor could not be found negligent in warning a patient if the doctor acted within the purview of common practice, even though other practitioners may follow different procedures and regardless of the particular patient's concerns. In this case, Maree Whitaker became essentially blind after an unsucessful operation on her right eye caused sympathetic ophthalmia in her left eye. Although there was no question that the surgery had been performed with the requisite skill and care, Ms. Whitaker petitioned the court for relief due to the failure of the ophthalmologist, Dr. Christopher Rogers, to warn her of the possibility (approximately 1 in 14,000) that the sympathetic ophthalmia condition could develop. The trial court's award of damages was affirmed because, in spite of Ms. Whitaker's expressed specific concern that her "good eye" not be harmed, Dr. Rogers did not inform her of the potential risks associated with the surgery.     

TROXEL v. GRANVILLE

The author opines that litigating visitation disputes between parents and third parties is advisable only under limited circumstances, and that the emotional benefits to children that are derived from their interactions with members of their extended family are only realized when the relationships between the extended and the nuclear family are satisfactory.     

Bowden v. Caldor

Abstract

Using the facts of the Bowden v. Caldorlawsuit in which Bowden alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and wrongful discharge against his employer, this paper explores the mistreatment at the hands of private security officers and store personnel. This exploration is important because it discusses several issues such as: (1) the racially influenced misconduct of private security officers; (2) the damage awards often awarded to victims of private security misconduct; (3) the effect deceptive practices can have on false confessions, especially those of juveniles; and (4) the abuse of juveniles by private security officers. To curtail abusive practices, the authors recommend that store owners establish more stringent store policies pertaining to handling employees during theft investigations.