Poldarks Negligence Case Study

“Medical malpractice occurs when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, causes an injury to a patient. The negligence might be the result of errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare or health management.” (Admin) One of the most common type of claims that pharmacies face are negligence claims. Negligence is one of the categories that falls under the area of law called Torts. In the Hundley v Rite Aid case, a tort was filed for injuries that were sustained by Gabrielle Hundley after she took medication from an incorrectly filed prescription. The case involved a jury trial verdict involving Gabrielle Hundley, a minor child, against Howard Jones, the pharmacist, and the Rite

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

The tort law section that falls into this case is negligence. Negligence is made up of three elements which determine negligence and duty of care is owed in this case State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

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).

Richards v. Richards, 181 Wis. 2d 1017, 513 N.W.2d 122. For example, in Richard, the court found the document signed by the plaintiff served two purposes: (1) authorizing her to ride in a Company truck, and (2) releasing Company from liability. Id. Moreover, the court ruled that a reasonable person would not take a document titled “Passenger Authorization” to release the defendant from liability. Id. In Richards, the plaintiff signed the waiver required to ride along with her husband in his truck. Id. at 1010, 513 N.W.2d 119. While riding in the truck with her husband, the truck overturned and the plaintiff was pinned inside the vehicle, causing injuries. Id. at 1014, 513 N.W.2d 121. The court concluded that the waiver did not go far enough as to describe the nature or significance of what injury the plaintiff might sustain because the passenger release and authorization to ride were combined into one document and served two purposes. Id. at 1018, N.W.2d

Currently, there is a lawsuit pending in Vigo Superior Court which is alleging that negligence by a property owner contributed to the death of three people. These deaths were a result of a fire which engulfed a rental property. The lawsuit claims that both the property owner and the property agent had failed to ensure that there were functional smoke detectors installed within the home. This home was occupied by Kayla Lewis, her daughter Gabrielle, and her stepbrother Jeremiah. Gabrielle age 2, was pronounced dead at the scene amongst the early morning fire at the home. Jeremiah age 5, was transported from the scene but later died at the hospital. Gabrielle's sister Chloe age 3, and her mother Kayla were both hospitalized due to injuries sustained in the fire. Kayla made it to the hospital, but later died.

In Perry v. Central Bank & Trust, 812 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991) it was reasoned as to whether the parties exercised due diligence concerning the suit and answering the summons. It also stated that carelessness by a party or his attorney is not reason enough to set an entry aside. Ky. Civ. R. 55.02. With that said, It can be argued, that Dr. Furlow fully intended to answer the complaint within the twenty 20 days; but was prevented from doing so, because of the trauma his family suffered at the hand of robbers the day before meeting with us. We can also argue that he had reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief as contained in ground (f) Ky. Civ. R.60.02.

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

Neil Rekun was killed while riding a motorcycle as he was hit by Carl Pelaez. According to Judge Raup, Rekun was 60% negligent and Pelaez was 40% negligent. “Under Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Act, a plaintiff cannot recover if he or she is more than 50% negligent” (238). In the arbitrary agreement between the two parties, they use the term “comparative fault” which did not include a bar on recovery if a plaintiff was more than 50%

Warleggen’s waiver distinguishes itself from the waiver in Roberts in that Warleggen’s waiver includes activity leading up to spelunking and cave tours, like the “car or van travel to and from the site”, while also including the phrase “ordinary negligence” directly in the types of risks that are included in spelunking. In Roberts, it was unclear to the court if the waiver covered activities before and after entering the hot air balloon. Unlike in Brooten, Warleggen’s waiver does not followed the term “negligence” with “OR ANY OTHER CAUSE.” Warleggen’s decision to omit that phrase precludes the possibility for an overly broad interpretation, like construing the waiver to release incidents involving recklessness and intentional conduct. If the waiver was overly broad and extended beyond ordinary negligence, the clause would be invalid under public policy. The waiver also includes “… ALL RISK[S] ASSOCIATED WITH SPELUNKING OR CAVING EXCURSION…,” which would seem to cover reckless or intentional conduct, but the sentence preceding it describes what “spelunking or caving excursion” activities are and clearly states only “ordinary negligence” is included. The waiver sets out the common activities included in spelunking and cave excursions, while also specifically covering the activities that are common to spelunking. Furthermore, the waiver language “Risks include, but are not limited to. . .” advised the Poldarks that there were other risks to contemplate, distinguishing itself from the Atkins’ waiver which made it difficult to ascertain what was in the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s contemplation.

Below is the memorandum for the negligence action regarding our client, Mr. Ragnarr Loobrok. To succeed in a claim of negligence, it must be proven that, on the balance of probabilities, that a duty of care was owed by the State of Victoria to prevent him from getting arrested once his bail conditions had been formally changed.

Negligence is a central topic in the vast area of Law- Tort. It is largely due to Negligence being by far most practiced by Tort lawyers with huge number of litigations each year. As per Sir Percy Henry Winfield:

In this report is a fully reasoned quantification of, our client, Mr. Steven Pearson’s personal injury claim against Mr. Fred Prendergast.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.