1. Hurley v. Eddingfield:What did the court mean when it said, "The Act is a preventive, not a compulsive, measure"? 2. Reynolds v. Decatur Memorial Hospital:Why did the court conclude that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff? Why didn't it matter that the defendant may have violated the Decatur Hospital rules? 3.Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd.:What standard did the court adopt for determining when a consultation creates a physician-patient relationship? Is the court's approach in Diggs consistent with the court's approach in Reynolds? 4. Tierney v. University of Michigan Regents:What is "abandonment"? Does the court's opinion mean that a doctor does not have the right to terminate a physician-patient relationship in response to the fact that the patient has brought a lawsuit against the doctor's colleague? 5. Reed v. Bojarski:How would courts in most American states have resolved the plaintiff's claim in Reed? In what way does New Jersey's approach to the case differ from the majority approach? 6.Estrada v. Mijares:Why did the court conclude that the actions Nurse Practitioner Mijares took on behalf of Mr. Estrada were not sufficient to establish a nurse-patient relationship? How did the court distinguish the Lunsford case, in which the court held that a nurse's duty of care does not depend on whether the "ailing person" is a patient of the hospital or the on-duty physician?