Does Act Government Owe Alex A Duty Of Care? Essay

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

The plaintiff was a student of his class and the defendant evidence was that he was unaware of the firing of pellets but the if he had had been aware he would have without a doubt taken the actions to shut it down and stop the pellets being shot across the class room. If the defendant had taken actions to stop the students from doing these actions the chain of causations would have been avoided and the student wouldn’t have been struck in the eye by a paper pellet. A case related to this Johns v Minister of Education, Chinner and Beck (1981) 28 SASR 206 the defendant was being sued for negligence. The case was the defendant who had been teaching a class when she had become aware of two boys using catapults to fire ballpoint pens. The defendant told the students to throw the catapults in the bin and later in that lesson she was not aware that a student had retained a catapult and the plaintiff was struck in the eye when a ballpoint pen was discharged by a catapult. In this case the teacher cannot be found negligence because she had told all students to throw out the catapults and to her knowledge they had and so in comparison to the first case the teacher was not adequately supervising the class and had not stopped the students from shooting paper pellets across the

Precedents have played a significant role construction and transformation public policy over time. The concern that judges face is whether establishing a new duty of care will influence public policy. This is the issue that results from in the Cooper v. Hobart case. The judge constructed a final decision that Hobart did not owe a duty of care to Cooper due to explanations that are delineated in public policy. This essay will discuss in favour of the judge’s decision for the reason that establishing a new duty of care would have conflicted with existing public policy. Initially, I will be providing a concise summary about the case of Cooper v Hobart. This involves the facts, issues and ratio. Then, I will elucidate what the Anns test is

There are two common factors that must exist before the law says a duty of care exists, which are

It is very common after adverse consequences or for actions not taken that lead to something seriously going wrong that someone has to take full responsibility and be held accountable. This idea in particular applies to health and care services where service user’s life and well-being can be seriously at stake. Carers must be responsible for the provisions that benefit service users than harm them and therefore they are accountable for what they do or omit to do. Accountability is clear list of tasks which failure to adhere to may result in penalties.

What is your responsibility under the above act as a care worker in relation to;

UNIT 5 - INTRODUCTION TO DUTY OF CARE IN HEALTH, SOCIAL CARE OR CHILDREN’S AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S SETTINGS ASSIGNMENT OVERVIEW In this assignment, you will demonstrate your understanding of what is meant by the term ‘duty of care’. You will consider the types of dilemma that you may arise in adult social care work, and find out where to get advice and support to handle these. You will look at how to respond to complaints, making sure you know and follow agreed procedures. TASKS There are three tasks to this assignment. TASK 1 2 3 TASK 1 1. Identify the following requirements when dealing with complaints. • Legal EVIDENCE Short answer questions Letter Case studies OUTCOMES 3.1, 3.2 1.1, 1.2 2.1, 2.2

‘The providers had failed in its legal duty to notify the Care Quality Commission of serious incidents including injuries to patients or occasions when they had gone missing.’

It is essential to manage risks associated with conflicts or dilemmas between an individual’s rights and duty of care by finding a level of balance. It is important that the care giver put personal feelings aside and look objectively at the situation. The right action should always be taken even if emotionally this is hard to do.

The issue in this case is whether under Tennessee Code Annotated § 44-8-413, our client, Kevin Gates, can be held responsible for his neighbor’s dog bite injuries, depending on his knowledge of the potentially “dangerous propensities” of his three dogs.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 came into force with crucial principles including new structures and arrangements in health care services to safeguard and strengthen the future of NHS and maintain the modernisation plan. In this Act, many new changes has been made to a number of existing Acts, National Health Services Act (NHS 2006), in order to enable health care system to tackle the existing challenges and also avoid any potential crisis in future. It has also introduced the proper allocation of NHS fund and budget, and improved the integrated care between NHS and social care services to promote patients’ choice in terms of delivering quality care.

The court in Morris found that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were the direct and immediate result of the dogs’ actions, and although no physical contact occurred, the dog’s actions caused the plaintiff to dismount his bicycle quickly, in order to avoid an imminent attack, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Similarly, our client never made physical contact with the dogs, sustaining her injuries when she was thrown from the sled, making direct contact with a tree. Although no physical contact occurred, the phrase “attacks or injures” insinuates actions by a dog that directly and proximately produces injury to the individual the dog attacks or injures. Lewellin, 465 N.W.2d at 65. While one might challenge that it would be easier to establish direct causation between ones injuries and a dogs actions through direct contact with the plaintiff, the statute’s language merely establishes an immediate implication by a dogs non-hostile behavior, in order to consider the dogs actions be covered under the language of "or injures. While there was no physical contact between Staycia and the sled dog’s, the dogs quick, veering off the fairly narrow path into the woods, caused Staycia to be thrown through the air, against a tree, invoking a direct and immediate result of the dogs actions of upsetting the sled. These facts invoke the statute’s

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

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 common law duty of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) and refined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). Any party including public authorities may owe a duty of care to another if particular conditions are fulfilled. The Caparo conditions apply to public bodies in respect of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on their actions.