Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute

27 Citing cases

  1. Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc.

    57 A.3d 1232 (Pa. 2012)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing de novo standard of review

    See Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., No. 20 MDA 2009, 990 A.2d 66, slip op. at 7–8 (Pa.Super. Dec. 1, 2009) (quoting DiMarco, 525 Pa. at 562, 583 A.2d at 424–25). The intermediate court also discussed Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute, 450 Pa.Super. 71, 675 A.2d 314 (1996), in which a cause of action in favor of a third-party non-patient was found to exist where a medical doctor failed to advise the patient about the dangers of spreading her disease to the unborn children of others. Although Troxel was factually distinct from DiMarco in that the physicians in Troxel gave no advice rather than erroneous advice, the Superior Court noted that the Troxel court did not find such distinction relevant.

  2. Sinoracki v. The Children's Serv. Ctr. of Wyo. Valley

    2023 Pa. Super. 170 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023)

    . In support, Appellant relies primarily on DiMarco, supra, as well as Matharu v. Muir, 86 A.3d 250 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), and Troxelv. A.I. Dupont Inst., 675 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. 1996). See Appellant's Brief at 30-36, 54; Appellant's Reply Brief at 12.

  3. Matharu v. Muir

    2014 Pa. Super. 29 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Matharu, this Court said that the period within which a claim must be filed under § 1303.513(d) begins to run when the cause of action accrues, which is the date of death.

    Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 324A. In so ruling, this Court relied primarily on two cases, DiMarco v. Lynch Homes–Chester County, Inc., 525 Pa. 558, 583 A.2d 422 (1990) and Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute, 450 Pa.Super. 71, 675 A.2d 314 (1996), appeal denied,546 Pa. 668, 685 A.2d 547 (1996). In DiMarco, our Supreme Court addressed “the issue of whether a physician owes a duty of care to a third party where the physician fails to properly advise a patient who has been exposed to a communicable disease, and the patient, relying upon the advice, spreads the disease to the third party.”

  4. Althaus by Althaus v. Cohen

    710 A.2d 1147 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)   Cited 13 times

    Our duty analysis depends on many factors and is "necessarily rooted in public policy considerations, i.e., our ideas of history, morals, justice, and society in general in determining where the loss should fall." Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 524 Pa. 445, 455, 573 A.2d 1016, 1020 (1990); see also Troxel v. A.I.DuPont Institute, 675 A.2d 314, 319-20 (Pa.Super.), appeal denied, 546 Pa. 668, 685 A.2d 547 (1996). Once we determine that a legal duty exists, we impose liability only in those instances where the harmful consequences of the defendant's conduct could reasonably have been foreseen and prevented by the exercise of reasonable care.

  5. Walters v. UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside

    187 A.3d 214 (Pa. 2018)   Cited 32 times
    Finding nature of risk significant where it amounted to a public health risk

    Thus, a third person within that "orbit" could state a cause of action against a physician who neglected that duty. SeeTroxel v. A.I. DuPont Institute , 450 Pa.Super. 71, 675 A.2d 314, 322–24 (1996) (finding a duty to inform a patient to avoid contact with pregnant women because the patient's contagious disease presented potentially lethal health risks to fetuses). In Emerich , 720 A.2d 1032, this Court held that a mental health counselor had a duty to protect a woman from her ex-boyfriend when he threatened during a counseling session to harm her.

  6. Pendleton v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

    3:21-cv-146-KAP (W.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2023)

    That the corrections officer did not consider that illness serious enough to deter her from working a shift would seem to be inherently inconsistent with the subjective knowledge that she was an “excessive risk” to an inmate. And assuming the rare case where that could be inferred, such as a nurse with knowledge of her contagious state working around immune-compromised inmates without safety gear or warnings, see generallyTroxel v. A.I. Dupont Inst., 450 Pa. Super. 71, 84, 675 A.2d 314, 320 (1996), is she liable no matter how insubstantial and passing the cold or flu contracted by an inmate, or only when “serious harm” actually occurs?

  7. Cooker v. Meadowood Corp.

    Civil Action 21-2667 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 20, 2021)

    For example, recovery has been allowed where a physician's negligence led to transmission of a contagious disease. Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute, 675 A.2d 314, 323 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996). Similarly, courts have recognized that a duty to warn exists in psychiatric cases where potential victims are readily identifiable.

  8. Miller v. Shubin

    Case No. 4:15-CV-1754 (M.D. Pa. May. 11, 2016)   Cited 3 times

    'the sum total of those considerations of policy which led the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection' from the harm suffered." Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute, 450 Pa.Super. 71, 82, 675 A.2d 314, 319-320 (1996), quoting Gardner by Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 524 Pa. 445, 454-455, 573 A.2d 1016, 1020 (1990), quoting Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 164, 404 A.2d 672, 681 (1979). Furthermore, "duty is only a word with which we state our conclusion that there is or is not to be liability...."

  9. Miller v. Masorti

    Case No. 4:15-CV-1754 (M.D. Pa. May. 11, 2016)

    'the sum total of those considerations of policy which led the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection' from the harm suffered." Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute, 450 Pa.Super. 71, 82, 675 A.2d 314, 319-320 (1996), quoting Gardner by Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 524 Pa. 445, 454-455, 573 A.2d 1016, 1020 (1990), quoting Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 164, 404 A.2d 672, 681 (1979). Furthermore, "duty is only a word with which we state our conclusion that there is or is not to be liability; it necessarily begs the question...."

  10. Miller v. Cantorna

    Case No. 4:15-CV-1754 (M.D. Pa. May. 11, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    "In determining the existence of a duty of care, it must be remembered that the concept of duty amounts to no more than 'the sum total of those considerations of policy which led the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection' from the harm suffered." Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute, 450 Pa.Super. 71, 82, 675 A.2d 314, 319-320 (1996), quoting Gardner by Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 524 Pa. 445, 454-455, 573 A.2d 1016, 1020 (1990), quoting Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 164, 404 A.2d 672, 681 (1979). Furthermore, "duty is only a word with which we state our conclusion that there is or is not to be liability; it necessarily begs the question...."