This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Leslie J. Miller, JD

JAMA. 1982;248(12):1443-1444.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Traditionally, one of the standard defenses to a negligence action, including a professional liability suit, has been the doctrine of contributory negligence. This doctrine precludes recovery of damages by a person whose injury was, in part, caused by his or her own negligence, even if the negligence of the person being sued was also a proximate cause of the injury for which recovery would otherwise have been allowed.

Courts have often been reluctant to apply the doctrine of contributory negligence because it can preclude recovery by a person whose negligence is substantially less than that of the person being sued. This is particularly true in professional liability actions due to the great disparity in medical knowledge between the patient and the physician. Thus, the defense of contributory negligence has been successful mainly in cases where the patient's conduct shows flagrant disregard for his own health or safety.

To achieve more . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association. For further information and reprints, write to Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?