ZRX1200 wrote:Paging Mr Fenster?!!!
Having had a signed document I would also assume so too.
Based on the article, the vaccinations) appear to have been an intentional, impermissible touching. That is a classic "battery" (not "assault"). The child, through her mother, would theoretically be entitled to damages. Her mother may be entitled to damages to- depending on the law of the jurisdiction.
If someone knowingly refused to honor the written prohibition, that is willful, wanton disregard for the (presumably) lawful wish(es) of the mother. This may entitle the kid, through her mother, and possibly the mother, to punitive damages.
If someone merely, innocently failed to note the written prohibition, that is negligence.
The allergic reaction goes to damages. So does mom's outrage.
Good enough?