Chapter 4 - Background To Negligence in Pharmacy Practice - Elements of Negligence (Part I)

Tshwane
University of Technology
Access Provided by:
Pharmacy Practice and Tort Law
Chapter 4: Background to Negligence in Pharmacy Practice: Elements of Negligence
(Part I)
INTRODUCTION
As noted in Chapter 1, there is a specific formula for providing evidence that negligence has occurred. Four elements must be proven to support a
cause of action in negligence.
A DUTY MUST EXIST
The defendant assumed or owed some duty to the plaintiff. The defendant developed a relationship with the plaintiff whereby the defendant owed a
duty of due care toward that plaintiff. As an example, when a pharmacist takes a prescription from a patient to be filled, once that prescription is taken
from the patient, the pharmacist owes that patient a duty of due care in ensuring that the prescription will be filled correctly.
A BREACH OF DUTY OF DUE CARE
The defendant acted in a manner that breached the due care owed to the plaintiff. In the case of a pharmacist filling a prescription for a patient, after
assuming the duty, the pharmacist may breach his duty by filling the prescription with the wrong medication.
CAUSATION OF HARM OR INJURY
The defendant’s breach of duty was either the actual or the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. If a pharmacist filled a prescription incorrectly, and
the patient was injured as the result of the error, the mistake made by the pharmacist may be considered as the actual or proximate cause of that
injury. The proof of actual and/or proximate causation may be the most difficult element of a negligence analysis to establish.
a. Actual Causation
Actual causation occurs when the plaintiff would not have been injured “but for” the negligence of the defendant. It is the link or bridge between the
breach of duty and the injury. For example, a patient receives a prescription filled in error with a sleeping pill instead of a laxative. After taking the pill,
he falls asleep behind the wheel of his car, crashing into a cement barrier and suffering serious personal injuries. Based upon the sleeping pill’s
pharmacological effects, incorrectly filling the laxative prescription was more likely than not the actual cause of the accident and subsequent injuries.
Such injuries would not have occurred “but for” the incorrect filling of the prescription.
Sometimes there may be several defendants who are viewed as being negligent by breaching their duty toward the plaintiff; however, it may be difficult
to prove which one of them caused the harm or injury. The “but for the negligence of the defendant” analysis is mainly associated with one defendant
that is closely linked to causing injury to the plaintiff. The “substantial factor” test or analysis is applied when there are two or more defendants,
especially where negligence may be difficult or impossible to prove regarding the actions of any one of the defendants. When there is good reason to
believe that several defendants, because of their close or similar relationships, are responsible for the defendant’s injury, the “substantial factor” test
is applied, implicating all the defendants as being responsible for the plaintiff’s injury. The defendants can fight among themselves as to who may be
solely or jointly culpable.
Examples of two such cases are found in the seminal case of Summers v. Tice, and the pharmaceutical companyrelated case of Sindell v. Abbott
Laboratories.
In Summers v. Tice, two defendant hunters mistakenly shot their rifles at the same time at what they believed was a quail in the bushes, but turned out
to be the plaintiff.1 One of the fired shots hit the plaintiff. Because it was difficult to determine which one of bullets from the two guns fired by the
Downloaded 2023227 3:13 A Your IP is 168.172.0.49
defendants struck the plaintiff, the court ruled that both defendants were responsible since to have to prove whose rifle the bullet came from would be
Chapter 4: Background to Negligence in Pharmacy Practice: Elements of Negligence (Part I), Page 1 / 7
impractical and most likely impossible. The court’s reasoning in Summers was founded upon the analysis that “… both were negligent to plaintiff.
©2023 McGraw Hill. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use • Privacy Policy • Notice • Accessibility
They both brought about a situation where the negligence of one of them injured the plaintiff; hence it should rest with them each to absolve himself if
he can.”
solely or jointly culpable.
Tshwane University of Technology
Examples of two such cases are found in the seminal case of Summers v. Tice, and the pharmaceutical companyrelated case of Sindell v. Abbott
Access Provided by:
Laboratories.
In Summers v. Tice, two defendant hunters mistakenly shot their rifles at the same time at what they believed was a quail in the bushes, but turned out
to be the plaintiff.1 One of the fired shots hit the plaintiff. Because it was difficult to determine which one of bullets from the two guns fired by the
defendants struck the plaintiff, the court ruled that both defendants were responsible since to have to prove whose rifle the bullet came from would be
impractical and most likely impossible. The court’s reasoning in Summers was founded upon the analysis that “… both were negligent to plaintiff.
They both brought about a situation where the negligence of one of them injured the plaintiff; hence it should rest with them each to absolve himself if
he can.”
In Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, a plaintiff was injured indirectly by acquiring vaginal carcinoma as the result of her mother taking the drug
diethylstilbestrol (DES) when she was pregnant with the plaintiff.2 The drug was used to prevent miscarriage at the time. The difficulty in this case was
attempting to identify which drug company was responsible for providing the plaintiff’s mother with the drug—approximately 195 pharmaceutical
companies manufactured the drug at the time, and no information was available through the pharmacy where the prescription was filled as to which
manufacturer’s DES was used. The theory that the court used in deciding this case involved a market share analysis:
“… we hold it to be reasonable in the present context to measure the likelihood that any of the defendants supplied the product which allegedly
injured plaintiff by the percentage which the DES sold by each of them for the purpose of preventing miscarriage bears to the entire production of
the drug sold by all for that purpose.” Plaintiff asserts that 6 or 7 companies “produced 90 percent of the DES marketed.” As a result, the court
concluded that “each defendant will be held liable for the proportion of the judgment represented by its share of that market unless it
demonstrates that it could not have made the product which caused plaintiff’s injuries....”
b. Proximate Causation
Proximate causation is found when it is foreseeable that the defendant’s breach of duty owed to the plaintiff would cause the injury incurred by the
plaintiff. The link or bridge between the breach of duty and the injury caused is possibly more difficult to prove since it may be more remote.
As an example, a pharmacist prepares a young woman patient’s prescription without a safetyproof vial. The patient takes the vial of medicine home
and places it in a relatively safe place. Unfortunately, the patient’s twoyearold son gets hold of the vial, consumes the contents, and becomes deathly
ill. Aside from the fact that there is an existing law requiring a pharmacist to place certain medications in childresistant safety containers, did the
pharmacist, by issuing a nonchildresistant safety container to the patient, breach a duty of due care that was sufficient to be the proximate cause of
the child’s serious injury In other words, is it reasonably foreseeable that a patient of the nature described earlier might have a family of young
children and that by providing the medicine in a container that is not safety proof, one of those children could possibly gain access to and open such a
container Because of the depth of the matter of proximate cause involving a number of considerations and because of the variations that occur within
the multitude of negligent cases, a further discussion has been reserved in the following pages of this chapter to hopefully provide a better
understanding of this rather complex causation concept.
HARM OR INJURY
The last element that must be proven in a negligence case is resultant harm or injury caused to the plaintiff. If there is no harm or injury caused as a
result of the breach of duty, a claim or cause of action in negligence will fail. Just because the patient received a prescription filled in error, as long as
the patient did not take any of the medicine, a claim of negligence would fail since no injury could be accounted for as a result of the breach of duty.
MAJOR KEY PRINCIPLES ASSOCIATED WITH NEGLIGENCE
Within the sphere of negligence, there are an abundant number of terms, concepts, and divisions. Before proceeding to the negligencebased cases in
the forthcoming chapters, it is important that the reader develop both an understanding and an appreciation for these negligencerelated topics. To
this end, we will continue our discussion with a more indepth discussion of proximate causation.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION (REVISITED)
It is not the intent of the authors to dwell on this subject ad nauseam, but it is important that the student have a reasonable grasp of the proximate
cause component to negligent actions. As somewhat alluded to before, a proximate cause analysis attempts to gauge how far you may be able to
stretch liability for a given negligent action to the defendant, and to determine if there are definitive boundaries that the assessment of causation
would be too difficult to attach once those boundaries have been exceeded.
William Prosser, in his torts casebook, analyzes the concept of proximate causation looking at foreseeability and risk taking.3 Prosser uses the example
of a car being driven at an excessive speed and the risk that the driver takes, viewing many of the conceivable things that can go wrong, thus creating a
potential for causing foreseeable harm or a chain of undesirable events. Among those harms or undesirable events could be the following:
PROXIMATE CAUSATION (REVISITED)
It is not the intent of the authors to dwell on this subject ad nauseam, but it is important that the student have a reasonable grasp of the
Access Provided by: proximate
cause component to negligent actions. As somewhat alluded to before, a proximate cause analysis attempts to gauge how far you may be able to
stretch liability for a given negligent action to the defendant, and to determine if there are definitive boundaries that the assessment of causation
would be too difficult to attach once those boundaries have been exceeded.
William Prosser, in his torts casebook, analyzes the concept of proximate causation looking at foreseeability and risk taking.3 Prosser uses the example
of a car being driven at an excessive speed and the risk that the driver takes, viewing many of the conceivable things that can go wrong, thus creating a
potential for causing foreseeable harm or a chain of undesirable events. Among those harms or undesirable events could be the following:
Hitting another car and possibly injuring or killing the driver.
The hit car going out of control and hitting a third and possibly a fourth car.
Hitting another car and narrowly missing a pregnant woman who miscarriages as a result of becoming frightened.
Striking a pedestrian who is left helpless in the street and run over by a second vehicle.
After striking a pedestrian, someone else comes along to steal the stricken pedestrian’s watch.
The stricken pedestrian acquires pneumonia due to their weakened condition and dies.
The stricken pedestrian, while on crutches, falls weeks later inducing new injuries.
The stricken pedestrian, while hospitalized, receives negligent medical treatment causing his death.
Cases representing the previous scenarios have actually happened, and have held the initiating defendant (the one driving the car who set off the
various events) responsible for not exercising reasonable due care and for being the proximate cause of the resulting injuries. Some of the previous
examples may provide the reader with a sense that the resultant injuries are somewhat remote from the defendant’s initial action. According to
Prosser, the proximate cause rule attempts to protect a victim or plaintiff from the risk that the risktaker or defendant takes that ultimately caused the
plaintiff’s injury. The previous examples attempt to display the limits or boundaries of “foreseeability” in that in some way the defendant set things in
motion to put the plaintiff in such a position that additional bad things happened to him or her.
There is also an “unforeseeable” element associated with proximate cause. Assume that while you are rushing down a walkway, you negligently bump
into someone relatively hard, knocking them to the ground. Unbeknownst to you, the individual is a hemophiliac who starts to bleed profusely and
dies. The question then becomes, would you be liable for causing such a horrible and unforeseeable outcome Most jurisdictions would apply the so
called thin skull doctrine, which stands for “taking your victim as you find him.” In other words, while the result of your rushing down the walkway and
possibly banging into another person was foreseeable, the seriousness of the damage caused could not have been reasonably foreseeable.
When an injury to a plaintiff is the result of possible acts of other defendants or forces, the concept of indirect causation may be present, giving rise to
an intervening force analysis. For example, if the commercial building that the defendant owns experiences a cyclonic storm of extensive intensity
whereby the roof caves in killing one of the employees within the building, assuming the roof is in good condition—a fact that will need to be proven to
show that the defendant was not neglectful in caring for the maintenance of the roof—the cause of the plaintiff’s death would appear to be attributable
to the intervening force of the cyclonic storm and not attributable to the defendant’s lack of responsibility in the upkeep of his roof. Often intervening
forces are commonly associated with acts of god, animals, or persons other than the defendant or plaintiff. If the defendant’s roof was in excellent
shape, and a natural consequence of a powerful force such as a devastating cyclonic storm was the exclusive reason for the roof to cave in, then this
intervening force would be classified as an independent superseding intervening force. Under such a circumstance, there would be no liability imputed
on the defendant. However, if the defendant’s roof was in disrepair and only a minor wind caused the roof to collapse, then the intervening force of the
minor wind would, generally, not be considered an independent superseding intervening force sufficient to hold the defendant liable for the resulting
death of the plaintiff. Another way this latter result would be expressed is by the terminology “dependent intervening force.”
To further elucidate the concept of dependent intervening force, consider the following example: The plaintiff is injured in an auto accident caused by
the defendant, and then rushed to a hospital to receive medical care that is negligently administered. The question becomes whether or not it was
foreseeable that the plaintiff would receive negligent care. Most cases would find that the negligent act in the administration of medical care was not a
superseding intervening force, and thus would be categorized as a dependent intervening force. Therefore, the resultant injuries caused to the
plaintiff by the defendant were foreseeable and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s total injuries since the defendant placed the plaintiff in a position
whereby such resultant injuries would not have occurred but for the negligence of the defendant.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Sometimes it may be impossible to know the identity of the defendant who caused the negligent act. Nonetheless, a negligent act did occur and the
plaintiff was injured. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) has been the governing principle in these types of cases. This
foreseeable that the plaintiff would receive negligent care. Most cases would find that the negligent act in the administration of medical care was not a
superseding intervening force, and thus would be categorized as a dependent intervening force. Therefore, the resultant injuries caused to the
Access Provided by:
plaintiff by the defendant were foreseeable and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s total injuries since the defendant placed the plaintiff in a position
whereby such resultant injuries would not have occurred but for the negligence of the defendant.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Sometimes it may be impossible to know the identity of the defendant who caused the negligent act. Nonetheless, a negligent act did occur and the
plaintiff was injured. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) has been the governing principle in these types of cases. This
doctrine attributes negligence to a party if all three of the following conditions are established:
The event causing the plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred unless someone such as the defendant was negligent.
There is a morethanlikely possibility that the defendant caused the injury to the plaintiff since the event was caused by an instrumentality in the
exclusive control of the defendant.
The plaintiff did not contribute to the event that caused his or her injury.
Kambat v. St. Francis Hospital provides an example of a res ipsa loquitur issue.4 In Kambat, during the performance of a surgical operation, an 18by
18in laparotomy pad was mistakenly left in the abdomen of the plaintiff who died some 30 days after the surgical procedure as a result of a systemic
infection associated with complications from nonremoval of the pad.
Plaintiff’s counsel presented evidence that the type of surgery the plaintiff underwent mandated the use of these particular pads. Therefore, the one
that was found in the plaintiff’s abdomen must have been the result of its use by the defendant during the surgical procedure. Thus, the negligent
event must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant. Further, it is reasonably clear that the pad
left in the abdominal cavity of the plaintiff was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)
When an employee of a corporation, for example, is involved in causing a negligent act, it is not uncommon that the corporation, as the employer, is
sued in addition to the employee. This imputing of liability on the corporate structure for the acts of a single employee is generally founded upon two
major principles: (1) The employee who caused the negligent act was acting within the scope of practice required by the corporation, and (2) the
corporation or business entity will generally have more money, or socalled deeper pockets, than the single employee tortfeasor to appropriately
compensate the plaintiff for the injury. As a general rule, a pharmacist employed by a chain pharmacy who commits a negligent act as an employee
acting within the scope of his or her employment will cause the business entity that he or she works for to be held liable for the employee’s actions. The
term respondeat superior is aligned to vicarious liability in that it denotes a masterservant relationship.
One of the major issues in vicarious liability cases is determining whether or not the employee was acting within his or her scope of professional
practice. Generally, this matter may be for the jury to decide, based upon the facts of each individual case. However, in pharmacy practice, since most
negligent acts center around errors in preparing patient prescriptions, a definite scope of practice, imputing of liability to the employer tends to be
more straightforward.
PREMISES LIABILITY
A collateral issue regarding any business entity is the possibility of a customer entering the business premises and getting injured because of some
negligent condition associated with those premises. Examples of this occur when something spills onto the floor, causing a customer to slip and fall
with resulting injury, or when something falls on a customer, causing injury. Depending upon the circumstances, premises liability cases are heavily
dependent upon the facts of any given situation. Rodgers v. HookSuperX Inc. is an example of a potential premises liability issue.5
In Rodgers, a customer (plaintiff) leaving a pharmacy is attacked by two men who take the plaintiff’s purse and knock her to the ground on the sidewalk
and parking area immediately in front of the pharmacy. The plaintiff noted several matters that suggest the pharmacy was negligent regarding its duty
to the plaintiff: (1) The pharmacy should have provided better protection for patrons who enter and exit the pharmacy (suggesting a guard); (2) there
was a robbery that occurred two months before in this general area; and (3) the lighting just outside the pharmacy was inadequate. The court, in
coming to its decision, looked at whether or not the attack on the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded that an attack two months
previously did not make an attack on the plaintiff reasonably foreseeable, and that the store lighting was sufficient and was not a factor in the attack on
the plaintiff.
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
The application of “negligence per se” arises when a statute or regulation is violated. This rule of negligence holds “that a violation of a statute is
negligence in itself if it causes harm of the kind the statute was intended to avoid and to a person within the class of persons the statute was intended
to the plaintiff: (1) The pharmacy should have provided better protection for patrons who enter and exit the pharmacy (suggesting a guard); (2) there
was a robbery that occurred two months before in this general area; and (3) the lighting just outside the pharmacy was inadequate. The court, in
coming to its decision, looked at whether or not the attack on the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded that an attack two months
Access Provided by:
previously did not make an attack on the plaintiff reasonably foreseeable, and that the store lighting was sufficient and was not a factor in the attack on
the plaintiff.
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
The application of “negligence per se” arises when a statute or regulation is violated. This rule of negligence holds “that a violation of a statute is
negligence in itself if it causes harm of the kind the statute was intended to avoid and to a person within the class of persons the statute was intended
to protect.”6 Perhaps the best example of the application of this rule regarding pharmacy practice is where there is a state statute or regulation
requiring the pharmacist to verbally consult a patient on the common severe adverse reactions of a new drug the patient will be taking. The pharmacist
neglects to consult with the patient on one of the severe adverse effects of a drug that could have been avoided had the pharmacist properly instructed
the patient on how to use it in order to avoid the untoward effect. As a result, the patient suffers an injury that could have been avoided had the
pharmacist properly consulted the patient. In this scenario the statute or regulation imposed a duty on the pharmacist to counsel patients within the
class of persons who receive a prescription for the first time in order to prevent major problems that can be associated with taking that prescription.
The fact that the pharmacist ignored following the requirements of the law will be viewed as negligence per se.
DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENT CLAIMS: WHERE AN ELEMENT OF THE NEGLIGENCE FORMULA
CANNOT BE PROVEN
A major defense for a defendant faced with a negligence claim is to argue that one of the four elements—duty, breach of duty, causation, or injury—is
lacking. Remember, all these elements must be present and provable in order for a plaintiff to succeed in a negligence claim. Also, just because an
injury happens to the plaintiff, it does not necessarily mean that it is tied to a breach of duty.
Sometimes the more difficult element to prove in a negligence case is the element of causation. In Chapter 6, cases involving causation will be
discussed to give the reader a better understanding of how the difficulty in proving this element can operate as a defense for the defendant. The issues
of duty, breach of duty, and injury are fact driven, and the outcome of a particular case, while depending heavily on the facts, may in some ways differ
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
CONTRIBUTORY OR COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
The plaintiff may have, in some way, added to his or her resultant injury, thus allowing the defendant to argue that the plaintiff was either a contributor
to his or her negligence or comparatively negligent. Depending upon the jurisdiction, a court will use the rule of either contributory negligence or
comparative negligence.
In those jurisdictions that find that there is contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the case will generally be dismissed against the plaintiff.
Usually the degree or percentage of plaintiff contribution to the negligence is not considered. There are, however, some situations where even though
the plaintiff may have contributed to his own negligence, the defendant may have had the opportunity to avoid injuring the plaintiff. This doctrine of
last clear chance applies when the plaintiff’s negligent action precedes the defendant’s negligence whereby the defendant had the opportunity or time
to avoid causing injury or further injury to the plaintiff.
An example of this would be if a pharmacist fills a refill prescription incorrectly. The patient notices that the refill drug does not look the same as
previous prescriptions she has gotten over the last five years. The patient starts taking the first dose of this incorrect medication without inquiring if it
is the correct medication. The pharmacist, shortly after the patient takes the first dose, realizes he dispensed the incorrect medication and decides not
to call the patient to correct the mistake since the pharmacist believes this wrong drug will not hurt her. However, the patient gets very sick and must be
hospitalized as a result of the adverse effects from this incorrectly dispensed prescription. One might argue that it would be reasonable for the patient
to call the pharmacy to check on whether or not the drug dispensed was the same as she has always gotten. The fact that she did not raises a
presumption that she may have contributed to the negligence. However, once the pharmacist found out that he dispensed the wrong drug, he in fact
had a last clear chance to correct the error. He did not, and as a result, by not taking the last clear chance, his negligence will not be dismissed.
In the majority of jurisdictions, the rule of comparative negligence is the more common approach where the plaintiff shares in being partly negligent. In
jurisdictions that apply the comparative negligence rule, the jury will be asked to apportion the percentage of negligence attributable to both parties.
Thus, as an example, and based upon the facts of the case, the jury might find that the plaintiff was 20% responsible for her resultant injury, and the
defendant contributed to the plaintiff’s injury to the order of 80%. Therefore, if there was to be a total $100,000 award based upon the damages
incurred, the plaintiff would only be entitled to $80,000 of the damage judgment. In a small number of jurisdictions that apply the comparative
negligence rule, if it were found that the plaintiff contributed to 51% or more of his or her injuries, the plaintiff would lose his or her entitlement to any
award that would otherwise be less than 49%.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
In the majority of jurisdictions, the rule of comparative negligence is the more common approach where the plaintiff shares in being partly negligent. In
jurisdictions that apply the comparative negligence rule, the jury will be asked to apportion the percentage of negligence attributable to both parties.
Access Provided by:
Thus, as an example, and based upon the facts of the case, the jury might find that the plaintiff was 20% responsible for her resultant injury, and the
defendant contributed to the plaintiff’s injury to the order of 80%. Therefore, if there was to be a total $100,000 award based upon the damages
incurred, the plaintiff would only be entitled to $80,000 of the damage judgment. In a small number of jurisdictions that apply the comparative
negligence rule, if it were found that the plaintiff contributed to 51% or more of his or her injuries, the plaintiff would lose his or her entitlement to any
award that would otherwise be less than 49%.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Under the assumption of risk defense, the defendant would attempt to show that the plaintiff consented to undertake or assume the risk imposed by
the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, knowing such risk is involved, if injured, would be barred from recovery from the defendant. This particular
defense or concept is really not commonly applied to pharmacy practice. Assumption of the risk does occur in pharmacy and medical cases where a
patient may, for example, consent to the risk of taking an experimental drug to hopefully manage a rare form of cancer. However, in these types of
cases, the patient is usually provided with an informed consent notice that must be signed, and that carefully states the known adverse effects and
problems with the experimental or investigational drug, and the possibility of the patient experiencing those effects or problems.
The principle of assumption of risk has been absorbed into the doctrines of contributory or comparative negligence in many jurisdictions.7
REFERENCES
1. Summers v. Tice , 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (Calif. Sup. Ct. 1948).
2. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories , 26 Ca1.3d 588, 163 Cal. Rptr. 132,607 P.2d 924 (Calif. Sup. Ct. 1980).
3. Prosser WL, et al. Torts, Cases and Materials . 7th ed. Mineola, NY: The Foundation Press; 1982:144, 364–370.
4. Kambat v. St. Francis Hospital , 89 N.Y.2d 489, 678 N.E.2d 456,655 N.Y.S.2d 844 (Court of Appeals of N.Y. 1997).
5. Rodgers v. HookSuperX Inc. , 562 N.E.2d 358 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990).
6. Dobbs DB. The Law of Torts (Hornbook Series) . St. Paul, MN: West Group Publishing; 2000:315.
7. Id. at 541546.
QUESTIONS
1 . An example was given in the text of the chapter whereby a pharmacist filled a prescription for a woman who had young children, and did not place
the medications in a childresistant container. As a result, one of the children easily opened the container, consumed the contents, and became
deathly ill. What if the facts of this case were changed whereby the pharmacist filled the prescription with the wrong drug, placed the medication in a
safetyproof container, and when the mother came home, she removed the safety cap and forgot to put it back, and as a result her young child
consumed the contents and became deathly ill Would the pharmacist be held negligent under these facts even though the mother was an intervening
factor by forgetting to put the cap back on the medication
2 . In consideration of whether or not vicarious liability exists regarding the actions of a pharmacy’s delivery person, what if that delivery person leaves
a prescription in the wrong place at a person’s residence who is not home at the time of the delivery, and a small child from next door finds and
consumes it, and is injured as a result Is liability imputed back to the employer What if the delivery person, using the employer’s car to make
deliveries, gets into an accident on the way back to the pharmacy Or the delivery person, using his own car, gets into an accident on his way home
after making deliveries for his employer pharmacy
3 . Explain the difference between a jurisdiction that employs a contributory negligence standard versus a jurisdiction that follows a comparative
negligence standard. In the following example, what would be the outcome for both the plaintiff and the defendant if a comparative negligence
standard is applied: Plaintiff is crossing the street when the light is red; defendant is speeding at 40 mph in a 20mph zone and hits plaintiff, causing
$1,000,000 in damages. If the jury finds the plaintiff 60% negligent and the defendant 40% negligent, what entitlement to the $1,000,000 jury judgment
does the plaintiff have What would be the outcome in a jurisdiction that applies the contributory negligence standard
after making deliveries for his employer pharmacy
3 . Explain the difference between a jurisdiction that employs a contributory negligence standard versus a jurisdiction that follows a
Access Provided by: comparative
negligence standard. In the following example, what would be the outcome for both the plaintiff and the defendant if a comparative negligence
standard is applied: Plaintiff is crossing the street when the light is red; defendant is speeding at 40 mph in a 20mph zone and hits plaintiff, causing
$1,000,000 in damages. If the jury finds the plaintiff 60% negligent and the defendant 40% negligent, what entitlement to the $1,000,000 jury judgment
does the plaintiff have What would be the outcome in a jurisdiction that applies the contributory negligence standard

Chapter 4 - Background To Negligence in Pharmacy Practice - Elements of Negligence (Part I)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4 - Background To Negligence in Pharmacy Practice - Elements of Negligence (Part I)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4 - Background To Negligence in Pharmacy Practice - Elements of Negligence (Part I)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tshwane

You might also like