We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital exemplifies the reluctance of many courts to impose vicarious liability in cases of employee sexual abuse, treating cases of sexual abuse differently from other cases. The California Supreme Court in Lisa M. ruled against a pregnant patient who had been sexually molested by a hospital technician under the guise of performing an ultrasound examination. The court determined that the assault was “outside the scope of employment,” not fairly attributable to the employer, and the result only of “propinquity and lust.” The rewritten feminist opinion recharacterizes the assault as an outgrowth of employment, emphasizing that the employee exercised job-created control and power over plaintiff’s body. Because sexual assaults are not uncommon in the healthcare setting, the feminist opinion regards the assault as foreseeable and would allow a jury to determine whether vicarious liability is warranted because the assault was committed within the scope of employment. The accompanying commentary situates the case at the intersection of sexual violence and women’s health and examines how job-created power can make a patient vulnerable to harm by medical professionals.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.