Blam Test Case Study

Authors Note: This paper is being submitted on the 18th of March 2013 for the winter semester of Medical Law and Ethics section 05.

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

The case study of Crowe v. Provost, 374 S. W. 2d. 645 (Tenn. 1963), was a highly-anticipated court case for the 1960’s. The following list pertaining to the example of what went wrong and by whom. The first patient appointment opens a file with the patient’s basic information and any allergies including medication(s). This would typically be done with the receptionist. If this was not the doctor’s first time seeing this patient, then the physician should have checked the chart to see if there were any allergies to anything including medication, such as, Penicillin and Cosa-Terrabon. Referring to the Crowe vs. Provost, the child was then rushed back into the doctor’s office with worsening symptoms, the nurse should have listened to the mother. The nurse, could have instructed the mother to take the worsening child to the nearest Emergency Department. The nurse advising the doctor, “That she thought the child was about the same as when the physician saw him earlier in the day” (Flight, M., 2011, page 5-6) was not a good idea. The doctor could have been brought in for an examination of the ailing patient. The receptionist returning from her lunch should not have been a signal for the nurse to leave for any reason with the patient getting worse. Again, the patient and mother should have been instructed to go to the nearest emergency room. The receptionist should not have been left alone with an ailing patient. Mistakenly, the receptionist calling the doctor first and

The tort of negligence was established with the leading case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) . Donoghue got sick from having a drink in a café after finding a snail in the bottle. Around this time, there was no route for litigation due to no contractual association. The only contractual commitment was with Donoghue’s friend who bought the drink and the café owner. Lord Atkin quoted the Bible’s principle of

Tort of negligence Is a major aspect of tort law and holds a large bearing in many civil cases. Negligence is simply a breach of duty or a

Hedley Byrne & Co LTD v Heller and Partners LTD [1963] 2 All ER 5

To find out whether the respondents breach their duty of care or not, it turns on 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) which provides that: A person is not unless the risk was foreseeable or the risk was not insignificant or a reasonable person in the person’s position would have

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

* In this case, we have to look at the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) to determine who was negligent and in specific, we use s 5B(1), s 5B(2) and s 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); s 5B(1) for the reasonable foreseeability test, s 5B(2) for determining if the standard of reasonable care has been breached and s 5R for contributory negligence.

25). Unfortunately, the article regarding Mr. Benson’s case did not give detail on whether or not proper documentation had occurred. However, one can assume documentation was not done properly as the wrong leg had been amputated. If proper documentation had been completed in Mr. Benson’s case, it is possible someone besides the surgeon may have caught the wrong leg was about to be amputated. An example of proper documentation would be the consenting of the patient for surgery. Mr. Benson had to have been consented for surgery, which means a doctor or a nurse practioner would discussed with the patient which leg was to be amputated, signs and symptoms of complications and what to expect after surgery. If there was any question once the patient was in the operating room, which leg to amputate, anyone could have looked in the patient’s chart to see what Mr. Benson had been consented for. Documentation of the time out could have also prevented Mr. Benson from having the wrong leg amputated. The reason being is, everyone involved in the case would have stopped and made sure the right patient was in the operating room and the right surgery was to be performed so it could be documented this act was completed. Not only proper documentation could have prevented this horrible act but also the help of the nurses could have prevented a mistake like this from happening.

Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said:

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

“In the majority of cases that come before the courts, whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care can be determined from precedent created by earlier cases; for example manufacturers of goods owe a duty of care to consumers, motorist owe a duty of care to other road users, boat captains owe a duty of care to their passengers, teacher owe a duty of care to their students, occupier owe a duty of care to persons who come on to their property. . (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165, 166 and 169).”

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.