Dehn v. Edgecombe

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “mere foreseeability of harm or injury is insufficient to create a legally cognizable special relationship giving rise to a legal duty to prevent harm”
• stating that “[t]he imposition of a common law duty upon Dr. Edgecombe to the wife under these circumstances could expand traditional tort concepts beyond manageable bounds”
• holding the trial court’s evidentiary rulings was not an abuse of discretion
• describing duty as “based upon a relationship between the actor and the injured person”
• declining to impose a duty of care based on the foreseeability that spouses would engage in sexual relations because “[t]he rationale for extending the duty would apply to all potential sexual partners and expand the universe of potential plaintiffs”
• “Medical malpractice is predicated upon the failure to exercise requisite medical skill and, being tortious in nature, general rules of negligence usually apply in determining liability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).