In Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, the court had to balance the hospital's negligence against the charitable immunity doctrine to determine whether Flagiello could recover for injuries sustained on the hospital's property. In its holding, the court determined that
A. the charitable immunity doctrine was specifically and clearly written; therefore, the court was bound to follow the clear intent of the statutory scheme and find for the hospital.
B. the charitable immunity doctrine had been litigated in the past and stare decisis required that the court adhere to established case precedent and find for the hospital.
C. current societal norms rendered the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable to this case and fundamental fairness allowed the court to deviate from established case precedent and find for Flagiello.
D. the charitable immunity doctrine can be repealed or overturned only by the state's legislature, and stare decisis required that case precedent be followed; however, due to the severity of Flagiello's injuries, the charitable immunity doctrine allowed for certain exceptions, permitting Flagiello to recover in this case.
Answer:C
In Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, the court had to balance the hospital's negligence against the charitable immunity doctrine to determine whether Flagiello could recover for injuries sustained on the hospital's property. In its holding, the court determined that
A. the charitable immunity doctrine was specifically and clearly written; therefore, the court was bound to follow the clear intent of the statutory scheme and find for the hospital. B. the charitable immunity doctrine had been litigated in the past and stare decisis required that the court adhere to established case precedent and find for the hospital. C. current societal norms rendered the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable to this case and fundamental fairness allowed the court to deviate from established case precedent and find for Flagiello. D. the charitable immunity doctrine can be repealed or overturned only by the state's legislature, and stare decisis required that case precedent be followed; however, due to the severity of Flagiello's injuries, the charitable immunity doctrine allowed for certain exceptions, permitting Flagiello to recover in this case.
Explanation: A) Case precedent can be rejected by the court if changes in law and society indicate a need for change.