Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Largey v. Rothman
Citation:110 N.J. 204, 540 A.2d 504 (1988)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
After discovering a mass in her breast, Janice Largey chose to undergo an operation to remove the mass and two swollen lymph nodes from her body. Before the operation, Largey met with her surgeon, Dr. Donald Rothman, and consented to the procedure. Rothman did not inform Largey of the small risk of developing lymphedema, a swelling caused by poor drainage in the lymphatic system, as a side effect from the procedure. Weeks later, Largey developed lymphedema in her arms.
Largey sued, claiming that Rothman should have warned her of the risk of lymphedema as a side effect of the operation. At trial, the jury was instructed to hold Rothman to the professional standard of negligence, which would hold him to the standard of a reasonably prudent physician in the same circumstances. The jury found for Rothman and Largey appealed, claiming that the court should have applied the “prudent patient” standard that requires a doctor to inform the patient of any risks that a reasonably prudent patient may want to know about before undergoing a procedure.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.