Co Manager Of Focus Video Pty Ltd

A health care provider must understand many aspects of statutory duty. Duty is “a legal obligation imposed on one to conform to a recognized standard of care to safe guard the rights of others”. The standard of care is usually related to medical malpractice cases. Standard of care is defined as “the caution and prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances or by appropriate authority for such situations”. This is mainly of importance because all physicians are expected to perform within the guidelines of this duty, and this standard or care changes depending on the circumstances. “Once the duty has been established, the plaintiff must show that it was breached by presenting evidence of the facts of the case and testimony from expert witnesses regarding whether the standard was met”(Showalter, 2014 p 139). Negligence results in the failure to meet this standard of care, and the jury usually decides if the defendant is guilty of committing a negligent act. Causation is an aspect of negligence. The defendant could be held liable for negligence if the act was considered to be foreseeable, and if the injury occurred from a breach of duty.

This would be a civil case against Jeanette 's physician. Civil cases generally deal with wrongful acts and are able to sue a business or a person for monetary value (Fremgen, pg. 36). In comparison to criminal case, where the government would have to prove intentional harm against others. The receptionist and the doctor 's action could be argued for Negligent tort. According to Fremgen, "Tort is a breach of duty that causes injury" (Fremgen, pg. 133). A healthcare professionals "action and inactions can be considered negligence" (Fremgen, pg. 133). In this case, the receptionist ' inaction to inform the doctor right away did cause harm to Jeannette. Jeanette 's

Negligence is upholding a certain leavel of care by determining if it meets the four components nessessary for a claim; duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In this case duty was not handled correctly. Duty means you agree to take care of a health care patients. THe girls working at the Good Samaritan Home did not take proper care of the residents. Breach of duty is broken down into four categories; Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance. In this case the breach of duty refers to nonfeasance. There was a failure to act, by no other employees bringing the ause to attention. Causation requires an injury to be due to the healthcare professionals negligence. In the case of abuse in the Good Samaritan case there was no other way the injuries could have happened. The damages refers to the injuries caused to the residents.

As a nurse it has happened to be an essential need to be conscious of the legal aspects associated with caring and serving people in the health industry today. Unfortunately, only fewer people want to get into the health care field fearing the legal aspects and the predictable law suits. The Tort Law is one of the legal aspects of the law that most nurses is more familiar with. This is the law that involved misconduct and negligence cases, which many nurses take the time to study in depth. This is one of the most universal and well-known laws, something that nurses and doctors must be familiar with, to maintain their care resourcefully.

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

Negligence Per Se: Violation of a standard of care set by statute. Example: injuring a

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

This paper is prepared in order to understand the IRAC format (Issues, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion). The IRAC format is considered as the standard format for soling the case studies of the law. In this paper, the case of “ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES V DEDERER (2007)” is selected to demonstrate the learning about the comprehension and understanding of terminology of law, particularly the terms used in the Law of Tort. Moreover, critical things and case law searching to solve the case study is also practiced and properly referenced in the solution of the case study. Here is the case study solution:

Police involvement was necessary since security was unable to assist that night; security services are complementary since the guard must service all three of Ms. Miner’s complexes, thus encouraging the use of police with emergency situations. Ms. Miner was uneasy when she learned about the assault and personally emailed the Plaintiff to inquire about her condition and to clarify that damages to the unit be repaired. Yet, Plaintiff responded by placing the blame on her ex-boyfriend for the damage, claiming that he wasn’t a guest (Exhibit 7); nonetheless, Plaintiff reluctantly paid $2500 for repair costs

Fran lee (F) the leader of AFA suffer serious head injuries and had been taken to the hospital and is in a coma. At the time of the insure she was restrained by a police group. Policeman (P) that was in the police group states that she was hit by a rock and it also hit him in the helmet. The rock was thrown from a group of R33 demonstrators. Police group states he was one of the police that is trying to protector her from getting attacked by some R33 members who got very close to her. A well know lawyer (A) with Fran claims that Fran was injury by the policeman. Lawyer (A) said the police was using their batons with unreasonable force against her and other AFA members. TV news (N) camera was damage but said that they had filmed several police using their batons

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

In 1972 a Ford Pinto, purchased six months prior, unexpectedly stalled on the freeway in California. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. The passenger, a 13-year old boy named Richard Grimshaw, was also severely injured from burns, which caused his face and body to be permanently disfigured.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

The appellant appealed on various grounds that firstly it did not owe a duty of care to Tony and secondly, even if it did owe a duty of care to him, there was no link between the breach of the duty and the attacks. The appellant argues that it had no control over the behaviour of the men who attacked the respondent, and no knowledge or forewarning of what they planned to do. In fact, nothing is known about them even now. For all that appears, they might have been desper-ate to obtain money, or interested only in brutality. The inference that they would have been deterred by lighting in the car park

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.