Skip to main content

Tatum v. Gigliotti

Citations

  • 565 A.2d 354
  • 80 Md. App. 559
  • 1989 Md. App. LEXIS 187

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding in context of Good Samaritan statute that emergency medical technician’s failure to properly treat asthma patient did not constitute gross negligence, where even plaintiffs expert did not testify that defendant’s actions constituted “reckless disregard for human life”
  • holding in context of Good Samaritan statute that emergency medical technician’s failure to properly treat asthma patient did not constitute gross negligence, where even plaintiff’s expert did not testify that defendant’s actions constituted “reckless disregard for human life”
  • emphasizing the standard that “gross negligence has been equated with “wilful and wanton misconduct,’ a ‘wanton or reckless disregard for human life or for the rights of others.’ ”
  • acts of paramedics may have amounted to negligence, but not gross negligence; directed verdict affirmed
  • acts of paramedics may have amounted to negligence, but not gross negligence; directed verdict affirmed
  • salaried emergency medical technician does not receive “compensation” within meaning of Good Samaritan statute unless he charges victim for services rendered

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gilbert, Moylan, Alpert

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases named Tatum v. Gigliotti

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.