Thought Leadership

The trial court entered nonsuit on the plaintiff’s corporate negligence claim as the case did not involve any kind of systemic negligence on the part of the hospital. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s sole expert gave only generalized, non-specific terms of what the expert believed “they” should have done, but failed to identify who was “they.” The plaintiff’s expert was only critical of “they,” which the court could only assume was the nurse and the attending emergency room physician, not the defendant hospital. Even assuming arguendo that “they” referred to the defendant hospital, the only testimony concerning knowledge for corporate negligence concerning issues with alarms on monitoring equipment, which fell well short of what is required for actual or constructive knowledge necessary for a claim of corporate negligence. Accordingly, the court found that there was no testimony and/or evidence demonstrating actual or constructive knowledge. This is beneficial to support arguments made in preliminary objections, judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment and nonsuit for corporate negligence claims where a plaintiff fails to allege or sufficiently allege actual or constructive knowledge. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}