-1- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o ...
-1- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o ...
-1- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
etween the interests of their patients and those of unknown nonpatients.The McKenzies, on the other hand, argue that: (1)where -- as here -- the defendant’s conduct in negligentlyprescribing prazosin creates the injury, pursuant to Restatement(Second) of Torts (1965) [hereinafter, Restatement (Second)] §302, foreseeability, rather than the existence of a “specialrelationship” between the physician and patient, is the majorcriterion determining whether a duty is owed them by Dr.Washecka; (2) even if a “special relationship” is necessary tocreate a duty entitling them to protection, a physician-patientrelationship is such a relationship; and (3) policyconsiderations, including deterrence of negligent conduct, thefair allocation of the costs of harm, and fair compensation forvictims, mandate that Kaiser owes a duty to them. The McKenziesfurther contend that Kaiser’s policy concerns are exaggerated andthat imposition of a duty in this case would impose no more of aduty upon physicians than they presently owe to their ownpatients. Wilson agrees with the McKenzies and also generallyasserts that it is sound public policy to hold physiciansaccountable to the general public for negligent prescribingpractices when it is foreseeable that a member of the public willbe harmed by such practices.In addition to the parties to this case, amicus curiaebriefs submitted by the Hawaii Pharmacists Association, the-7-