Activity 3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Seton Hall University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
11
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MinisterFieldAntelope38
Case Reviews
The cases under review are Tenuto v. Lederle, Safer v. Estate of Pack
, and
Molloy v. Meier
. The three cases applied both primary and secondary sources in making
judgments. The primary legal sources include constitutions, court cases, legislation, and
administrative policies and regulations. Secondary legal sources not only recite the law,
but also examine, analyze, clarify, interpret, or criticize it. The courts relied on different
primary sources such as the Constitution of the United States, State Statutes, and the
Federal Rules of Evidence. The secondary sources of law relied on include opinions of
courts, articles on law review, as well as treaties. Tenuto v. Lederle Eiseman v. State of New York
and De Angelis v Lutheran Med
– primary
sources. The court used these references to rule that decisional law extends a
physician’s duty of care to household members, particularly where a contagious illness
is involved. In Eiseman,
the decision is cited by the New York Supreme Court as one of
its primary authorities to create a precedent that “under acceptable conditions, common
morality, logic, and social policy might justify a limited expansion of a doctor's duty of
care far beyond present patient under treatment.”
Safer v. Estate McIntosh v. Milano
– primary source. Since the court does not identify a major
distinction between harm caused by infection and harm caused by genetic information,
this decision is regarded as a key binding precedent to justify the expansion of duty of
care. The assumption that if the plaintiff had access to genetic information, she could
have made alternative decisions about her self-care and maybe averted the risks of
early death from colon cancer is not mentioned but is properly presumed.
The court
ruled that a doctor owed a warning to people who were believed to be at risk of
preventable injury from a genetically transmittable illness. The court determined that
there was no significant distinction between the sort of genetic hazard at stake and the
risk of infection, contagion, or bodily injury.
Molloy v. Meier
United States Constitution – primary source. The court depended on the United States
Constitution and
reasoned that the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil
cases.
Secondary Sources The courts relied on the New Jersey Administrative Code,
Federal Rules of
Evidence,
California’s Evidence Code, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as
secondary sources. In Tenuto v. Lederle, the court reasoned that the New Jersey
Administrative Code is a complete compendium of the state's administrative rules.
The
court referenced the Federal Rules of Evidence, the California Evidence Code, and
California case law in Safer v. Estate of Pack. The court decided that the California
Evidence Code regulates evidence admissible in civil processes, but the Federal Rules
of Evidence regulate evidence admissibility in jury trials. The court also cited California case law, which states that a claimant in a civil
dispute has the privilege to have the issue decided by a jury. Similarly, in Molloy v.
Meier, the based its decision on the US Constitution, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Illinois case law. The court decided that the right to a judicial proceeding
in civil disputes is guaranteed by the Constitution and that the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure control the admission of evidence in a trial. The jury also cited Illinois case
law, which states that a claimant in a civil matter has the privilege to have his or her
case tested in front of a jury.
Policy Issue In the three cases, the issue is whether physicians must inform family members
(hereditary offspring), close friends, or people in contact with a patient of the
transmission of infection, whether it occurs through genetic inheritance or via contact
with a communicable infectious agent.
The principle is the same in all three cases since
they all involved a physician's obligation to warn individuals other than the patient, even
if it appeared to breach the privacy norms generally expected in a physician-patient
connection.
All three stem from an earlier case, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of
California
, which established a physician's (in this situation, a psychologist's) obligation
to inform an individual in touch with a patient of immediate or foreseeable risk. The
California Supreme Court concluded in this case that the psychologist had a
responsibility to notify a possible victim that he or she was in imminent danger from a
patient who had expressed a wish to kill the victim. The victim was murdered in this
instance, and the court found that the psychologist was civilly responsible even though
the warning would have breached confidentially.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Citation
Molloy V. Meier, 679 N.W.2d 711 – CourtListener.com. Court Listener,
www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1843055/molloy-v-meier. Safer v. Estate of Pack, 677 A.2d 1188, 291 N.J. Super. 619 (Super. Ct. App. Div.
1996). Tenuto v. Lederle Labs., 687 N.E.2d 1300, 90 N.Y.2d 606, 665 N.Y.S.2d 17 (1997).