Beginning with an investigation into the problematic nature of medical liability, the Article overviews the most significant approaches taken by courts and scholars in order to establish whether the physician's position before the patient is comparable with that of either a tortfeasor or a contractor. Having explained that the most recent approaches in this regard tend toward the recognition of the contractual nature of medical liability, the Author discusses the implications of such a solution, making specific reference to the following is sues: 1) the assignment of the burden of proof (along with the distinction between obligations of means and obligations of result): 2) proof of causation (along with further reference to the difference between civil and criminal standards of proof regarding causation-in-fact): 3) the role of informed consent: 4) the prescription regime. The final part of the Article investigates the rapid increase in medical malpractice litigation as a side-effect of the "contractualization" of medical liability, focusing on the strategies to follow in order to minimize expense claims [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Chicago Kent Law Review is the property of Chicago Kent Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Medical Malpractice: The Italian Experience,
Chi.-Kent. L. Rev.
Available at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol87/iss1/4