Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitnegligenceliability
lawsuitdefendantnegligenceliabilitytestimony

Related Cases

Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99, 769 N.E.2d 738, 165 Ed. Law Rep. 742
View Case »
Eriksson v. Nunnink, 191 Cal.App.4th 826, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 90, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 380, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 468
View Case »
Wilbourn v. BRG Sports, Inc., 569 F.Supp.3d 445, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 21,269
View Case »
Evans By and Through Evans v. Oaks Mission Public School, 945 P.2d 492, 121 Ed. Law Rep. 843, 1997 OK 97
View Case »
Jackson v. Drake University, 778 F.Supp. 1490
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Stineman v. Fontbonne College, 664 F.2d 1082, 32 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1726, 1 Ed. Law Rep. 770

Facts

Patricia Stineman, a deaf student at Fontbonne College, was injured during a softball practice when a ball struck her in the right eye. Despite the severity of the impact, the coaches failed to provide medical assistance, believing she would be fine after applying ice. Stineman later experienced severe vision problems and was diagnosed with traumatic hyphema, leading to the loss of vision in her eye. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the college for negligence in failing to render medical aid.

Stineman was injured during softball practice when a ball, thrown by defendant Mary Jo Lopiccolo, struck her in the right eye. The impact of the ball striking Stineman could be heard eighty to one hundred yards away, according to the testimony of other players in the outfield. Coach Johnson heard Stineman cry out from the impact. Ice was applied to the area of the eye, and Coach Brake told Stineman to go to her dormitory room and rest, and that she would be all right.

Issue

Did Fontbonne College breach its duty to provide medical assistance to Stineman, and was the jury's damage award excessive?

Whether Fontbonne College breached its duty to provide medical assistance to Stineman, and whether the jury's damage award was excessive.

Rule

Under Missouri law, a college has a duty to provide medical assistance to students when it is aware of the severity of an injury. The elements necessary to impose such a duty include the ability to appreciate the injury's severity, the skill to provide adequate medical treatment, and the likelihood that timely medical attention would have prevented further harm.

Under Missouri law, a college has a duty to provide medical assistance to students when it is aware of the severity of an injury. The elements necessary to impose such a duty include the ability to appreciate the injury's severity, the skill to provide adequate medical treatment, and the likelihood that timely medical attention would have prevented further harm.

Analysis

The court found that the coaches at Fontbonne College were aware of the severity of Stineman's injury and had the ability to provide medical assistance by directing her to the nearby medical clinic. The evidence indicated that prompt medical attention could have significantly reduced the risk of vision loss. The jury was properly instructed on the elements of negligence, and the court determined that the damage award was excessive compared to similar cases in Missouri.

The court found that the coaches at Fontbonne College were aware of the severity of Stineman's injury and had the ability to provide medical assistance by directing her to the nearby medical clinic. The evidence indicated that prompt medical attention could have significantly reduced the risk of vision loss. The jury was properly instructed on the elements of negligence, and the court determined that the damage award was excessive compared to similar cases in Missouri.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the finding of negligence against Fontbonne College but determined that the $800,000 damage award was excessive and not supported by the evidence, ordering a remittitur of $200,000.

The court affirmed the finding of negligence against Fontbonne College but determined that the $800,000 damage award was excessive and not supported by the evidence, ordering a remittitur of $200,000.

Who won?

Patricia Stineman prevailed in her lawsuit against Fontbonne College, as the jury found the college negligent for failing to provide necessary medical assistance after her injury. The court upheld the jury's finding of liability, emphasizing that the college had a clear duty to act given the circumstances of Stineman's injury and her reliance on her eyesight due to her deafness.

Patricia Stineman prevailed in her lawsuit against Fontbonne College, as the jury found the college negligent for failing to provide necessary medical assistance after her injury. The court upheld the jury's finding of liability, emphasizing that the college had a clear duty to act given the circumstances of Stineman's injury and her reliance on her eyesight due to her deafness.

You must be