Excerpts from Today's Work:

"Thus, we believe that Justice [Blanketyblank's] "concurrence" more closely resembles this opinion than the lead opinion. We therefore concur with his concurrence insofar as it concludes that there can be more than one specialty germane to establishing the appropriate standard of care, and also insofar as it implicitly stands for the conclusion that multiple experts may be utilized in establishing a breach of the appropriate standard of care. "

(Note: Justice Blanketyblank wrote the lead opinion and a concurrence. The passage above comes from yet another special concurrence. I know you really wanted to know that.)

And then we have this bizarre rant taken from a case brought by a woman against her doctor. The doctor claims the woman contributed to her injuries because she did not take the medicine prescribed to her, which was meant to prevent her injuries. The majority of the court agreed. The following is from the dissent:

"I refuse to take part in the judicial determination of what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. Smokers, couch potatoes, and fast food connoisseurs pick your doctors carefully because after today, no matter how negligent a doctor is in treating you, the jury will be able to consider your poor health habits when deciding whether to hold the doctor liable."

I'm having a difficult time understanding how taking one's actions into account when determining causation is the same as judicial legislation of social behavior. I'm equally unsure how choosing a doctor carefully would help one's case.