Proximate Cause: The Elements Of Negligence

There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).

The tort of negligence is the term used to categorise behaviour that poses substantial risks to other people and property.

Negligence is when somebody has a duty of care and that duty is breached. Negligence is split into 3 parts.

| |The duty of care is in part, exercised through the development of respectful and caring relationships between adults and |

Negligence is carelessness amounting to the culpable breach of a duty, ie failure to do something that a reasonable person (ie an average

Negligence is defined as the failure to use reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable harm to a person, place or thing.

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.

This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the

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

Negligence: A failure to act as a reasonable person would be expected to act in similar circumstances.

Negligence: A person acts negligently if they should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain consequence would result from their actions. Although the level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, the difference between the two is that with recklessness, the actor must be aware of the risk involved with her actions, whereas, for negligence, the actor is not aware of the risks but should have known what those risks were”(National Paralegal College, 2017).

The legal ramifications of this case include medical malpractice from the nurse, physician, and the hospital, a wrongful death lawsuit, and possible revocation of licenses of the involved parties. Basing on the Components of Professional Negligence as stated on Table 5.3 by Marquis and Huston (2015), the nurse and the physician are both guilty of malpractice. The physician wasn’t able to provide the best care, failed at meeting the standards of care, disregarded the possibility of the patient bleeding out after numerous attempts by the primary caregiver to inform her of the abnormals, and the patient died as a result of failure to assess the patient on a timely manner. Assuming that the nurse followed the physician’s orders and documented all of her observations and the physician’s responses to every inquiry the nurse made, he or she should have notified the charge nurse of the situation and follow the hospital protocol regarding instances like this. According to the components, the nurse is guilty because her failure of not acting on the perceived threat to patient safety has resulted in demise. Although the learning exercise did not mention any other available employee that could’ve helped prevented this case, the charge nurse, nurse supervisor, or nurse administrators who have not physically provided care for the patient may also be included in malpractice claims as a result of lack of leadership (Cooper, 2016).

Professional Negligence refers to the failure to perform a duty competently either by commission or omission. Negligence in a clinical setting can result to patient falls, burns, administering wrong medication, or harm caused by defects in an apparatus used by the health care provider. These all lead to injury to a patient, and in this setting, injury may include not only physical harm but also mental anguish and other invasions of the patient's rights and privileges. In any case, negligence must be proven to have occurred and may be in any of the different forms

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 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