Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 1983No. 81-3-437Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLarsen, Justice

[2] I join in Mr. Justice Flaherty’s affirmance of the Commonwealth Court’s opinion, but I dissent from Mr. Justice Flaherty’s reversal of that opinion.

I disagree with Mr. Justice Flaherty’s treatment of the Vattimos’ claim for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees expended in defending James in civil and criminal proceedings arising out of the incidents in this case.

First, I believe that the hospital had a duty to protect against this type of harm. Not only was the initiation of criminal proceedings against James the factual consequence of the hospital’s alleged failure to properly supervise and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Builders Supply Co. v. McCabeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Lancaster County National Bank v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
  3. Lerro v. Thomas Wynne, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Wolf's CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API