Analyze the development of health care project management predicated on tort law.
Ascertain the major ways in which tort law provides solutions to health care concerns, in light of the complexities of 21st Century health care administration roles.
Anonymous Changed status to publish October 5, 2019
Sorry, you do not have permission to read comments.
Significant ways in which tort law provides solutions to health care concerns are as follows-
- In its modern-economic sense, deterrence aims at reducing the number of accidents by imposing a substantial financial cost on unsafe conducts. A distinction is necessary between a specific and general deterrence. The former depends largely on the monitory effects of tort law. When the insurance cushions the defendant from the economic consequences of an adverse judgment, it gets limited. This deterrent element, however, completely evaporates in the case of traffic accidents, where harm is statistically inevitable. In most cases, it results from momentary inattention, the occurrence of which no tort award can ever prevent. Therefore, in some cases tort law is considered to be the second-best means of preventing accidents after criminal law. It can cause greater (deterrent) influence in cases involving damage to property and tort harm resulting from intentional activities.
- Compensation is arguably the most important function of tort law, and the modern insurance practice has made it easier to satisfy the injured without financially crushing the injured. The welfare state, however, has now become the primary source of accident compensation these days. But even where tort law plays a major compensatory role—for example, in the most severe cases of personal injury—it does not necessarily function with great efficiency. Though tort lawyers have rightly regarded tort as the compensation system that caters best to the particular victim based on the pre-accident situation and prognosis of his future, it nonetheless remains expensive, capricious, and dilatory.
- Compensation in its crudest form meant that the cost of an accident would be shifted simply from the victim to the tort-feasor. From a very long time, the only plausible excuse for such a shift was deemed to be the tort-feasor’s fault. Indeed it seemed right to make the wrongdoers pay for it. Leading to consequences that he who is not at fault need not pay, also appealed to 19th-century jurists and judges, who were often found to be more concerned about shielding nascent industries from the crushing costs of litigation than with compensating the growing number of such industries’ victims.
Anonymous Changed status to publish October 5, 2019
Sorry, you do not have permission to read comments.