Dogwood and that nothing in his employment record could have put them on notice of his poor judgment. Claim 3 -- Karl vs. ECR Manufacturer

John has a very good product liability claim against the ECR manufacturer. That is because the company supplied a product that was unreasonably dangerous to users in the ordinary way in which the product was intended to be used. This is a violation of the implied warranty of fitness for its intended purpose.

Possible Defenses

The ECR manufacturer will argue that the defect in its product was not the proximate cause of the harm that Karl suffered. Specifically, that argument is that it was the negligent decision of Dr. Dogwood to use the pad even after he noticed the...

Nursing Staff and Anesthesiologist
Karl does not have a good case against the nursing staff of the anesthesiologist unless he can produce evidence that any of them new or should have known that the insulation was missing from the ECR pad. Otherwise, there is no basis for a claim because it is difficult to identify what any of those individuals did that could be considered negligent.

Possible Defenses

Those individuals will argue that they fulfilled their respective duties to Karl by not doing anything that was negligent in their specific responsibilities during the surgical procedure.