While some drivers in Bridgeport play fast and loose with speed limits, these laws do exist for a reason. There is abundant evidence that shows that traffic fatalities increase with the speeds of vehicles involved in accidents. While going slightly over the limit may not seem like a big deal, serious speeding violations can have devastating consequences.
A few weeks ago, we discussed the concept of "informed consent" with regards to medical malpractice cases in Connecticut. Basically, medical professionals have a duty to ensure that patients understand the risks and benefits of a certain course of medical treatment, that they are aware of feasible alternatives and that they consent to going forward with the treatment. But what does this mean, in practice, to a person who has been injured and is attempting to recover for his or her medical expenses and other losses due to a lack of informed consent? One of the main important concepts in consent-based medical malpractice cases is "materiality." When a patient is informed about a medical treatment or procedure, he or she must be given all information regarding the material risks of the treatment. In this context, "material" information is that information which a reasonably prudent person would take into account when deciding whether to submit to the treatment. Note that this is an objective, rather than subjective standard. This means that materiality is not based upon what this particular patient may have thought, but what a hypothetical reasonable person would have found important. The second important idea in malpractice cases based upon lack of informed consent is that of "proximate cause." Under Connecticut law, this means that a person injured by a medical treatment must show that if disclosure of material risks had been made, a reasonable person would not have consented to the treatment. Again, the state of mind of the particular patient involved is not the standard, but rather whether a hypothetical reasonable patient would have found the risk significant enough to mot submit to the treatment.
Most states, including Connecticut, have placed laws on the books requiring that individuals who have certain roles in supervising and coming into contact with potential victims of child abuse have a duty to report potential cases of abuse to the proper authorities. But, in practice, what does this mean?
Once again, drivers in Connecticut rank among the most dangerous in the country. A study by NerdWallet shows that New Haven is the 8th most dangerous city in the U.S. for driving and owning a car.
This space has previously discussed what signs there may be that a loved one who is in a nursing home or assisted care facility is being abused or neglected. We have also touched on the fact that bedsores, which often are caused by failure of a patient to move, can become serious health problems. One possible cause of such effects is the use of physical or chemical restraints by a nursing facility.
Several weeks ago we began taking a look at the elements of negligence that might be involved in a premises liability lawsuit in Connecticut. Readers may remember that we briefly covered the concepts of duty and breach, and how they were related to the various statuses a visitor on property may have, such as invitee or trespasser. This week we will look at an element that is independent of the status of the visitor: "cause-in-fact."
Previous posts here have discussed various aspects of car accidents, including what Connecticut requires of someone who's been involved in one, as well as the frequency of such accidents on some of the roads in the state. Last fall, we touched on the concept of negligence, and gave some examples of what might be negligent behavior behind the wheel. Today we'll take a closer look at the term and what it actually entails.