Do you think the comparative negligence defense holds in this case? [PW v. childrens hosp. Colorado,364 P.3d 891(2016)]. Give reasons and laws related to your answers. 
8. After a series of suicide attempts with psychiatric assessments in between each of them, 16-year old K W. was admitted to the inpatient psychiatric unit of the Chilren's Hospital of Colorado. K.W. was to be treated for depression and suicidal ideation and was placed on the "high suicidal precautions" list. According to hospital policy, individuals on the aforementioned list were required to be in sight of staff at all times, except for in the bathroom. How- ever, staff were to stand in the vicinity and check on the patient at least every thirty seconds when a "high suicidal precautions" patient was using the bathroom. Staff allowed K.W. to use the bathroom at 9:55 P.M. At 10:15 P.M., staff found that the unattended K.W.had hung himself using his scrub pants. The hospital staff attempted to resuscitate K.W. and were successful in restoring his pulse. They were not successful in restoring his mind. His son K.W. in a minimally brain conscious state, P.W. sued the hospital for negligence. The hospital asserted that K.W. was comparatively negli- gent in the damage caused to him. The district court rejected that argument, ruling for P.W., and the hos- pital appealed. Do you think the comparative negli- gence defense holds in this case? [PW v. Children's Hosp. Colorado, 364 P. 3d 891 (2016).] dmitted to the LSU Chapter 9 8. After a series of suicide attempts with psychiatric assessments in between each of them, 16-year old K.W. was admitted to the inpatient psychiatric unit of the Chilren's Hospital of Colorado. K.W. was to be treated for depression and suicidal ideation and was placed on the "high suicidal precautions" list. According to hospital policy, individuals on the aforementioned list were required to be in sight of staff at all times, except for in the bathroom. How- ever, staff were to stand in the vicinity and check on the patient at least every thirty seconds when a "high suicidal precautions" patient was using the I f S S bathroom. Staff allowed K.W. to use the bathroom at 9:55 P.M. At 10:15 P.M., staff found that the unattended K.W. had hung himself using his scrub pants. The hospital staff attempted to resuscitate K.W. and 10. were successful in restoring his pulse. They were not successful in restoring his mind. His son K.W. in a minimally brain conscious state, P.W. sued the hospital for negligence. The hospital asserted that K.W. was comparatively negli- gent in the damage caused to him. The district court rejected that argument, ruling for P.W., and the hos- pital appealed. Do you think the comparative negli- gence defense holds in this case? [PW v. Children's Hosp. Colorado, 364 P. 3d 891 (2016). ] A000 D 8. After a series of suicide attempts with psychiatric assessments in between each of them, 16-year old K W. was admitted to the inpatient psychiatric unit of the Chilren's Hospital of Colorado. K.W. was to be treated for depression and suicidal ideation and was placed on the "high suicidal precautions" list. According to hospital policy, individuals on the aforementioned list were required to be in sight of staff at all times, except for in the bathroom. How- ever, staff were to stand in the vicinity and check on the patient at least every thirty seconds when a "high suicidal precautions" patient was using the bathroom. Staff allowed K.W. to use the bathroom at 9:55 P.M. At 10:15 P.M., staff found that the unattended K.W.had hung himself using his scrub pants. The hospital staff attempted to resuscitate K.W. and were successful in restoring his pulse. They were not successful in restoring his mind. His son K.W. in a minimally brain conscious state, P.W. sued the hospital for negligence. The hospital asserted that K.W. was comparatively negli- gent in the damage caused to him. The district court rejected that argument, ruling for P.W., and the hos- pital appealed. Do you think the comparative negli- gence defense holds in this case? [PW v. Children's Hosp. Colorado, 364 P. 3d 891 (2016).] dmitted to the LSU Chapter 9 8. After a series of suicide attempts with psychiatric assessments in between each of them, 16-year old K.W. was admitted to the inpatient psychiatric unit of the Chilren's Hospital of Colorado. K.W. was to be treated for depression and suicidal ideation and was placed on the "high suicidal precautions" list. According to hospital policy, individuals on the aforementioned list were required to be in sight of staff at all times, except for in the bathroom. How- ever, staff were to stand in the vicinity and check on the patient at least every thirty seconds when a "high suicidal precautions" patient was using the I f S S bathroom. Staff allowed K.W. to use the bathroom at 9:55 P.M. At 10:15 P.M., staff found that the unattended K.W. had hung himself using his scrub pants. The hospital staff attempted to resuscitate K.W. and 10. were successful in restoring his pulse. They were not successful in restoring his mind. His son K.W. in a minimally brain conscious state, P.W. sued the hospital for negligence. The hospital asserted that K.W. was comparatively negli- gent in the damage caused to him. The district court rejected that argument, ruling for P.W., and the hos- pital appealed. Do you think the comparative negli- gence defense holds in this case? [PW v. Children's Hosp. Colorado, 364 P. 3d 891 (2016). ] A000 D
