Multiple Choice
It is a generally accepted precaution for dentists to warn patients of risks and exercise extra caution when patients are on anticoagulants (blood thinners) and must undergo dental procedures. A dentist fails to alert a patient (who the dentist knows is on anticoagulants) of the risks of a procedure the patient is about to undergo that is dangerous to someone on blood thinners. The patient experiences near-fatal bleeding due to the procedure. The plaintiff decides to sue for malpractice but the dentist says he was unaware of the need to warn patients on blood thinners of possible risks. Is the dentist going to be successful in his defense?
A) Yes, as long as the dentist can prove he did not know about the risks.
B) Yes, as long as the dentist did not make any specific mistakes during the dental procedure.
C) Yes, as long as the dentist can prove that the risks are overstated.
D) Yes, because malpractice cases require intentional harm for a victim to prevail.
E) No, because a professional cannot defend against a negligence suit by claiming ignorance of generally accepted principles in his or her field of expertise.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q57: Why has the contributory negligence defense been
Q58: Identify and discuss the two separate elements
Q59: Which of the following is an unforeseeable
Q60: Which of the following aids plaintiffs in
Q61: When a defendant in a negligence suit
Q63: A fan at a baseball stadium is
Q64: If a plaintiff cannot establish all four
Q65: Assuming res ipsa loquitur is established, what
Q66: Which type of damages are NOT available
Q67: What is the final required element of