Notes

RankerX - nembutal - 606
The Benefits Of Nembutal Online
At 6 o'clock, plaintiff was awake and Nurse Detter gave her a grain and a half of nembutal. At 11 o'clock, Nurse Detter came on duty. However, the doctrine of customary usage does not apply to the question of legal duty under the law of negligence (Robinet v. Hawks, 200 Cal. The Court of Appeals in reversing it stated: "If violation of the statute has no direct bearing on the injury, proof of the violation becomes irrelevant. For injury caused by the neglect of duty imposed by the penal law there is civil remedy; but, of course, the injury must follow from the neglect." In Janssen v. Mulder, 232 Mich. The law in California appears to be unchanged since the early malpractice case of Bute v. Potts (1888), 76 Cal. The statement by the court that defendant "engaged in the unauthorized practice of the law" appears to be dictum, incidental to the result reached. Supportive of her claims that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict against respondent, appellant argues that the hospital was guilty of negligence as a matter of law in violating certain statutes governing the nursing profession and the administration of narcotic and hypnotic drugs; and that jury questions were raised by evidence establishing, or tending to establish, that respondent and its employees failed to furnish the care and facilities commensurate to her needs.

Next, and with reference to the control of hypnotic drugs (nembutal being in that category) by a hospital not employing a pharmacist, section 4225, Business and Professions Code, specifies that "(t)he supply is to be made available to a registered nurse, for administration, on the order or direction of a physician to patients registered in the hospital, or to emergency cases under treatment in the hospital." Appellant contends that by virtue of the foregoing statutes only a California registered nurse could administer the drugs prescribed for her, and neither Nurse Sallee nor Nurse Detter having been licensed in this state, both were guilty of negligence per se. Upon being returned to her bed, the side rails were put up. Between 5:30 a.m. and 6 a.m., plaintiff was taken to the bathroom by an attendant nurse after first being clothed with a cap and gown for surgery; at that time she was sleepy and under sedation.

When Nurse Detter last saw plaintiff at 7 a.m., she was under the influence of hypnotics and appeared to be asleep. Plaintiff's pulse and temperature were not taken thereafter, but Nurse Detter subsequently advised her night supervisor of the additional medication administered. At approximately the same time her pulse was taken by another registered nurse who described her condition as normal for a patient under preoperative medication. Plaintiff's pulse was noted to be 104, which, according to the nurse, was within normal range under the circumstances, and she did not report the fact to her supervisor. At 7:15 plaintiff's temperature was taken by a registered nurse who had just come on duty; she was then sleeping quietly, her color was good, and she was breathing normally. Both of these registered nurses testified that the bed's side rails were up, as did plaintiff's father who looked into his daughter's room and stated that she did not appear to be restless.

When plaintiff was found on the floor the side rails of her bed were still up. At 6:15, she was still awake and talked to the night supervisor. As to this particular phase of the appeal, there is no reason to believe that there would have been less likelihood of injury to appellant had both Nurses Sallee and Detter been licensed in California; at least there is no evidence in the record before us that the results would have been otherwise. Assuming that in Buy nembutal usa before us no circumstances are present justifying the inference of sufficient excuse for the violation contended, we proceed with the controlling element of proximate cause. While it is elementary that an act in violation of a statute is negligence as a matter of law, it is also established that unusual conditions may be shown to excuse or justify the violation. Without going further into the matter of whether both nurses technically may have violated one or more statutes by the administration of the drugs prescribed, it does not follow that if such violation be deemed to exist, it must be considered as negligence per se. This h᠎as  be en generated by GSA Conte᠎nt G᠎enerator DE MO!


My Website: https://nembutalparadise.online/