| Issue (What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?) | |
|
● Who are the parties in this case: plaintiff and defendant? |
The parties involved in the case were, Plaintiff-appellant Rosalina Iturralde, defendant Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, HMC and the defendant Robert Ricketson (FindLaw, 2018). HMC is the hospital defendant Robert Ricketson worked and defendant Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA is the hospital medical supplier. Rosalina Iturralde appeals to the court for its failure to judge the three defendants equally. |
| ● What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court? | The appellant claim that the circuit court made mistakes by not imposing several damages and joints against HMC hospital in a different from the amount imposed against Dr. Rickeston. Secondly, she appeals the court err in adopting Medtronic`s proposed jury instruction on substantial change doctrine of product liability, taking Medtronic`s proposed jury instructions and the special verdict interrogatory on foreseeability and superseding cause (FindLaw, 2018). Finally, failure to hold HMC equally responsible for the damages subjected to Rosalina for the negligence of her emotional stress. |
|
● Is the court deciding a question of fact —i.e., are the parties in dispute over what happened? Or is it a question of law —i.e., is the court unsure which rule to apply to these facts? |
The decision of the court is a matter of facts since by giving a verdict that finds Medtronic not responsible for any accusation against it. It finds the both Dr. Robert Rickeston and HMC Hospital with negligence which in turn caused Rosalina harm. The jury verdict 65% of the cause of harm to Rosalina and 35% to the hospital (FindLaw, 2018). |
|
● Which facts of the case raise issues? |
The fact that Medtronic was awarded judgment on the harm on Rosalina more than Dr. Rick-etson and HMC raised the issue which made the appendant appeal due to the court errors. |
| ● What are the nonissues ? | The crossed-appeal made by HMC claiming that HRS 663-10.5 precluded it from being held accountable was a non- issue. This is because considering HRS 663-10.9; it eradicated joints and several liabilities except for economic damage against joints in actions involving death or injury and, specific economic damage in actions involving death or injury where the joint brings about an individual personal degree of negligence which is found to be at least 25%. HCM appeal, therefore, makes it a noneissue (FindLaw, 2018). |
| ● Other | The other issues appealed were relevant according to fact. |
References
FindLaw. (2018). Iturralde V. Hilo Medical Center USA . Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-intermediate-court-of-appeals/1597588.html
It’s time to jumpstart your paper!
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
