 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marshall v. Klebanov6/22/2005
that is not the standard of care the Legislature created when it adopted N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-16.
Finally, I disagree with my colleagues that the common law standard of care articulated in Fernandez, supra, survived the adoption of the statute in 1991. The words "immune from any civil liability for a patient's violent act against another person or against himself unless the practitioner has incurred a duty to warn and protect," are sufficiently clear to me that the Legislature intended to create a new and comprehensive standard, thereby abrogating pre-existing common law principles.
Here, looking for meaning behind the words of the statute is not only unnecessary, but unwarranted. As the Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed, " f the language is plain and clearly reveals the meaning of the statute, the court's sole function is to enforce the statute in accordance with those terms." State of New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Caldeira, 171 N.J. 404, 415 (2002) (quoting Stafford v. Stafford Zoning Bd., 154 N.J. 62, 71 (1998)).
I therefore respectfully dissent.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|