CLOSEClose New York Law Journal Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
medical expensesCan evidence of a health care provider’s custom and practice be admissible at trial as habit evidence to prove a fact or standard of care? Can such evidence be proof in support of due care or lack thereof sufficient to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment for or against a party? Can such evidence arise from a creative imagination and be a poor excuse for medical negligence? The simple answer to all questions is yes. Therefore, the courts must choose to exercise much scrutiny and discretion before allowing circumstantial evidence to be admissible creating an inference of due care or lack thereof.

The discussion begins with the seminal Court of Appeals decision in Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals, 41 N.Y.2d 386 (1977), a product liability case in which the defense sought to introduce evidence of plaintiff’s “usage and practice” to use an immersion coil to heat the water into which the Freon (the product) was placed causing the explosion seriously injuring the plaintiff.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Law Firms Mentioned

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.