Chiles v. Salazar · ¶156

Historically, the medical-malpractice tort generally required the plaintiff to prove three things: (1) that there was a professional-patient relationship, (2) that the medical professional had caused him harm, and (3) that the provider had departed from a standard of care. De Ville 46–50. The majority focuses on the requirement to show harm. Ante, at 653–654. But the entire point of the third element was to reinforce the standards that govern medical practitioners. For that reason, the harmed plaintiff was required to establish that the accused physician had not practiced with “ordinary care, diligence, and skill.” See De Ville 49 (emphasis deleted).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.