Case Study Goodman Company In Maryland

A board certified neurologist specializing in Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, dementia, and other neurodegenerative disorders, Dr. Goodman has worked on over 100 clinical trials. His investigations have covered all phases of clinical research and are highlighted by numerous groundbreaking trials in Alzheimer's disease. He is extensively published in the field of neurology, most particularly in the area of biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease.

In addition to his work as a Principal Investigator, Dr. Goodman serves as the Medical Director of the Compass Clinic, a private neurology practice within the Bioclinica Research Network.

He currently serves as an Associate Professor of Neurology at the University of Central Florida, College of Medicine and as an Associate Clinical Professor of Neurology at the University of Florida, College of Medicine.

Before joining the Bioclinica Research Network, Dr. Goodman led neurology at Orlando Regional Medical Center and founded the state-funded Memory Disorder Center of Central Florida, where he has served as director for the past 15 years.

Dr. Goodman has been named "Top Neurologist in Central Florida" for 14 consecutive years by Orlando Magazine, was named "Top Neurologist in the Country" by US News & World Report, and is sought after and quoted by The Wall Street Journal as a leading authority on Alzheimer's disease.

Dr. Goodman earned his medical degree at the Medical College of Pennsylvania.

Citation.Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, 48 S. Ct. 24, 72 L. Ed. 167, 1927 U.S. LEXIS 254, 56 A.L.R. 645 (U.S. Oct. 31, 1927)

Brief Fact Summary. Goodman (Plaintiff) was struck and killed by Baltimore and Ohio R.R.’s (Defendant’s) train when Plaintiff crossed a train track. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s own negligence caused his death.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The question of due care is generally left to the jury. When the standard is clear, the court should make the decision. However, “when the standard is clear, the Courts should lay it down once and for all.”�


Facts. Plaintiff was driving his automobile truck and was killed by a train operated by Defendant running at a rate of speed not less than sixty miles per hour. Plaintiff’s estate argued that he had no practical view beyond a section house until he was about twenty feet from the rail, or twelve feet from danger. Defendant’s engine was obscured by said section house. Plaintiff had been driving at ten or twelve miles per hour, but slowed down to five or six miles per hour as he neared the crossing. The railroad line was straight, it was daylight, and Plaintiff was familiar with the crossing. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s own negligence caused his death. Defendant requested a directed verdict, however it was denied. The jury found for the Plaintiff. This decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendant appealed.

Issue. Not knowing whether or not a train was coming, did Plaintiff assume the risk when he crossed the train track without first exiting his vehicle and checking?
See More Course Videos

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *