It does not absolve First Union of its duty to use ordinary care
and good faith.
39) Since the petition failed to allege that the defendant should have known of the loose floorboard, the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant breached its duty to exercise ordinary care
But the appellate court held that a plain reading of the statute together with the definition of "insurance producer" established that "any person required to be licensed to sell, solicit, or negotiate insurance has a duty to exercise ordinary care
in procuring insurance.
only ordinary care
(rather than extraordinary care).
Prices for ordinary care
payments are often determined in countless negotiations between doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and insurers, with the result often depending on their relative negotiating power.
Account holders can reduce their chances of being held liable for check fraud losses for failing to exercise ordinary care
The jury instruction in the case quoted the good Samaritan rule adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which "requires one who voluntarily assumes a duty that is necessary for the protection of another to exercise ordinary care
in the performance of the duty, if the circumstances are such that the failure to do so increases the risk of harm to another""
The high court first determined that the general rule that each person has a duty to use ordinary care
not to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others applied in Cabral, such that a freeway driver owes other drivers a duty of ordinary care
in choosing whether, where and how to stop on the side of the road.
Owners of the garage asked the court to dismiss the action because they had no legal duty to Scott to warn or otherwise protect him from the consequences of driving an n-foot truck into a beam with an 8-foot-6-inch clearance because it was an open, obvious danger that should have been observed by any person exercising ordinary care
for his safety.
In contrast to ordinary care
, a stricter obligation (defined as extraordinary) would be too burdensome for the majority of patients and would impede what he described as a higher, spiritual good.
THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE HELD THAT BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT INCLUDED CLAIMS THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NEGLIGENT AS TO BOTH THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND THE ORDINARY CARE
THEY PROVIDED, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING THE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON GROUNDS THAT THE GRAVAMEN OF THE COMPLAINT SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
No doctor of ordinary care
or skill would have prescribed the two drugs at the same time.