1 / 7

HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL 328 N.E.2d 488 (1975)

HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL 328 N.E.2d 488 (1975). Case Brief. HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL. PURPOSE: Higgins is to be read along with Colby to illustrate the difference between legislation and adjudication and illuminate the judicial attitude exemplified in the doctrine of stare decisis.

jela
Download Presentation

HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL 328 N.E.2d 488 (1975)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL328 N.E.2d 488 (1975) Case Brief Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

  2. HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL • PURPOSE: Higginsis to be read along with Colbyto illustrate the differencebetween legislation and adjudication and illuminate the judicialattitude exemplified in the doctrine of stare decisis. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

  3. HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL • CAUSE OF ACTION: Action in tort and contract (for injuries asinpatient at defendant hospital). Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

  4. HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL • FACTS: Injury occurred after Colby was decided but before theMassachusetts legislature abolished charitable immunity. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

  5. HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL • ISSUE: Whether the Colby decision precludes defendant’sdefense of charitable immunity. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

  6. HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL • HOLDING: No. Charitable immunity allowed. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

  7. HIGGINS v. EMERSON HOSPITAL • REASONING: The language of Colby expressed an intent toabolish but did not abolish charitable immunity. Since the subsequent statutedid not operate retroactively, the lower court properly allowedthe defense of charitable immunity. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

More Related