Flashcards Studio

During a private clinical laboratory's night shift, a medical technologist operates an automated sample analyzer. A software fault causes a specimen’s reported electrolyte level to be abnormally low. Relying on the machine’s readout and standard operating procedures, the attending clinician withholds a needed electrolyte infusion, and the patient suffers a transient arrhythmia but recovers after treatment. The technologist insists there was no intent to harm and that they trusted the analyzer’s display. Which of the following best encapsulates Morales v. People's doctrinal import for quasi-offenses and how it applies to this scenario? (a) Identify the controlling Morales v. People doctrine on quasi-offenses and the mental state required for liability. (b) Distinguish whether the act could be charged as a quasi-offense or as a crime requiring intent, and outline the elements of each. (c) Apply Morales to the facts: does the technologist’s act constitute a quasi-offense? Would the laboratory/hospital’s liability attach under agency or vicarious liability principles? Explain.