Stinson v. Physicians Immediate Care, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a “drug-testing laboratory owes a duty of reasonable care to persons whose specimens it tests for employers or prospective employers”
• holding that, although privity of contract may not have existed, “the plaintiff was known to the defendant, and, when the defendant analyzed the plaintiffs specimen, it knew that negligent testing could wrongfully identify the plaintiff as a drug user”
• holding that although the plaintiff could not recover on the basis of a contractual duty, “[t]here need not be a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the defendant to owe a tort duty
• laboratory owes prospective employee a duty not to contaminate sample and report a false result
• laboratory owes prospective employee a duty not to contaminate sample and report a false result
• “the injury, that the plaintiff would be terminated from his employment, is not only foreseeable, but also is a virtual certainty in the event of a positive drag test result”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).