Negligence Is An Important Part Of Tort

Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use

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

This essay is going to talk about healthcare law and breaches of duty of care. Healthcare law is generally tort law. A “tort” is a legal wrong that the law provides a remedy for. The person that suffers the injury is known as the plaintiff and the person said to of caused the injury is known as the defendant or tortfeasor. Tort law originates from the time of the norman conquest in 1066. Tort law is a type of civil law and tortious wrongs are known as civil wrongs. Tort covers a range of things from trespass to negligence. Negligence is the most common area of tort law that healthcare professionals will come across.

In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

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

Negligence is when someone is failing to do something that a reasonable person would do in a similar situation or, doing something that a reasonable person did not do in a similar situation.

Our text defines a tort as “a civil wrong” and negligence as “a tort, a civil or personal wrong” (Pozgar, 2012). Negligence as it is related to healthcare is an unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person or organization would or would not do under normal circumstances. Not following a recognized standard of care could be considered negligence. The case I have chosen to study is one from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City Maryland and is that of Enso Martinez a minor by and through his parent (Rebecca Fielding) vs The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Maryland July 2013. I would describe this as a landmark, “David vs Goliath” case

The relationship between breach of duty and standard of care is ,Breach of duty is the failure to practice reasonable legal and moral action as it pertains to the law and standards of care is the degree in which a person practices reasonable legal and

RULE - Negligence occurs when an entity fails to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to others. For a valid negligence claim the plaintiff must establish the following elements of proof: duty of care, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, and actual loss or harm. If the defendant can attack any of these elements they may successfully defend the negligence suit. The first element is establishing the presence of a duty of care owed by one party to another.

Establishing whether not the current case is analogous to cases in which a duty of care already been determine. For instance the category of which duty of care has been held not to exist. The law justifies all these through the word responsibility. Everyone has a responsibility for their actions. This same word, responsibility, is also used to justify strict and vicarious liability. Parents, guardians, employers and other similar persons are responsible for their wards and employees. I think this is also a balancing of the scale. Due to circumstances such as incapacity in law of inability to pay, the injured party may be

Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson created a definition of a ‘neighbour’ towards a duty of care in negligence within the bounds of an indirect causal link without the added implication of a willful act or inherently dangerous goods. This provided a mechanism for a third party to go beyond the doctrine of privity and sue even if not a direct party to a contract.

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.