Law - Case analysis

.docx

School

Seneca College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

380

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by KidBoulder9288

SENECA COLLEGE ALW380 NJJ In Class Group Assignment (15%) FALL 2023 1. Dr. Michael Mills, a surgeon employed to the Mandeville General Hospital, carelessly failed to remove part of a suture which had previously been inserted into the plaintiff Mabel Jones in an operation referred to as ‘cervical encirclement’, thereby exposing the patient Jones to considerable danger in her subsequent pregnancy and labor. Explain what, if any claims may be made against the hospital in this instance and the likelihood of success. (4 Marks) ANSWER: I- A surgeon named Dr. Michael Mills has been employed by Mandeville General Hospital, however, he was negligent so the central issue in this case is whether the hospital will be liable for Dr. Michael’s negligence. The plaintiff, Mabel Jones, had an operation called, “cervical encirclement” for which Dr. Michael had failed to remove a part of the suture, and the question is whether the hospital can be held liable for this as well. This case’s issue or concern is whether the hospital can be deemed legally responsible for the actions of its medical staff or, in this case, its employed surgeons. R- The legal principle pertinent to this case involves vicarious liability, which dictates that employers can be held responsible for their employees' actions conducted within the scope of their job. Furthermore, the hospital's evaluation may hinge upon its duty of care to patients, encompassing the obligation to provide adequate medical care, supervision, and safety measures within its premises. A- If it can be proven that Dr. Mills' acts were within the purview of his job, the hospital may be held personally liable for the doctor's negligence in this case. Courts will probably evaluate whether Dr. Mills' performance of the negligent surgery at Mandeville General Hospital was within the scope of his employment as a surgeon. In addition, the hospital's duty of care to its patients can be closely examined, with emphasis on whether it implemented appropriate monitoring and quality control methods over medical operations to avoid similar accidents. The hospital might be held liable if there is evidence that it did not take the necessary steps to ensure patient safety or if Dr. Mills' activities were considered within his job's scope. However, the hospital might be able to avoid negligent liability if it can be shown that Dr. Mills' acts were not within the scope of his employment. C- Because her child and herself are at risk due to the alleged negligence, Mable Jones will request monetary compensation for the harm caused. She could go after monetary damages for the failed surgery to compensate her for additional expenses, medical bills, and other financial damages, among other things. Mable Jones may also be entitled to a non-monetary remedy designed to make up for the first mistake and lessen the damage done. 2. Shopping at a large shopping center and, while walking through the crowded mall area, Gretel saw a youth pushing his way through the crowd in what appeared to be an attempt to

escape from a man in a dark-blue uniform, who was following him. At the time, Gretel was standing near the exit from the building. When the youth finally broke through the crowd and attempted to leave the building, she stepped in front of him to block his path. The youth collided with Gretel, and the two parties fell to the ground. Gretel seized the fallen youth by the arm as he attempted to stand up and tried to pull him back down to the floor. The youth then struck Gretel a blow on the side of the head with his fist, causing her to lose consciousness. The youth as it turned out, was hurrying through the crowd in an attempt to catch a bus, and the older man, who was following him through the crowd, was his father. The youth’s father was employed as a security guard at the shopping center and was leaving work for the day. Explain this incident in terms of tort law and tort liability. (4 Marks) ANSWER: I- Due to Gretel's actions of blocking the youth's route and attempting to shove him to the ground, the main question, in this case, is whether the youth's use of force against Gretel can be justified as self-defense under tort law. R - Relevant Legal Principles: A person is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defense under tort law when facing an immediate threat of harm. When defending against a purposeful tort, like violence, the use of force must be appropriate to the threat. A - In this case, the issue centers on Gretel's actions and if it poses a direct risk of injury. Gretel put himself in a position where the youth may have reasonably felt threatened by purposefully blocking his way and attempting to force him to the ground. Under tort law's rule of self- defense, the young man would be entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself from Gretel's acts, which would put him in immediate danger. When the rules are applied to the situation, Gretel's intentional actions can be seen as a premeditated crime against the young person, which supports the young person's use of reasonable force in self-defense. The youth's use of force would be assessed according to how reasonable it was in light of Gretel's threat. C - In conclusion, under tort law the youth's use of force against Gretel can be supported as self- defense. The young person had the moral and legal right to use reasonable force to protect himself from the threat that Gretel's intentional conduct had created. Consequently, under this situation, no tort action may be filed against the minor. 3. It was the week before Christmas and all through the mall it was extremely busy. Frank and Mary Dehaney were in the mall parking lot searching for a place to park. They noticed a car leaving the next aisle, so Frank Dehaney jumped out of their vehicle and ran over to “stand guard” while, wife drove around to park. Before his wife could get to the spot however, Bruno Grey drove up and in an irritating manner blew his horn for Frank to move so that he could park. Frank refused to move and insisted that his wife was on her way to the parking area. Grey decided he wanted the spot and on two occasions moved his car toward Frank, stopping just before making any contact. At this point Frank, who became extremely annoyed at Bruno’s actions, shouted some curse words at Bruno. Bruno became angry, then drove his car again toward Frank, this time causing his car to touch Frank. Bruno kept moving his car toward Frank, leading to Frank slipping and breaking his arm in the fall. Frank’s wife Marsha Dehaney had driven up while all this was going on, and was extremely upset, so much so she dropped a hot cup of coffee in her lap, resulting in third-degree burns to her.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help