The Case Of Cooper V Hobart

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

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.

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

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.

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;

the public can put its trust ad faith in but this time it fell apart

Another institution that protects our rights is shown by this case, the principle of separation of powers is on display, simply put the principle of the separation of powers refers to the three different branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and how they provide for a system of checks and balances for one another (Donald Carper, 2011) ensuring all parts act within the scope of their powers. This is outlined by the fact that the actions of the executive where investigated by the courts to see if their actions were in compliance with the Australian Constitution and other relevant legislation passed, by ensuring that the government’s actions were in accordance with the rules stated in the constitution it was ensured that the government acted within its scope and there was no abuse of power, because if this system of checks and balances did not exist than there would be no way to stop one of the bodies from overstretching and doing something that is outside of their power, we need to hold institutions accountable in order to ensure people’s rights are protected and governments cannot implement any policy that they wish. Individuals may disagree about the outcomes of particular cases but it is vital to our democracy and our rights that all the outcomes of cases are based on the Constitution and the relevant legislation, by having everything follow a set guideline and by having systems to enforce these guidelines we ensure institutions

Anthony Cooper was charged under the laws of Michigan State with assault with intent to murder Mundy using a gun that he fired to Mundy and she was shot on her buttock but luckily she survived the attack. Besides the assault charges, he was also charged with possession of a weapon illegally, been under the influence of marijuana and turning to be a habitual offender. Blaine received an offer from the court to dismiss two of the charges and suggest a lenient sentence of 51-85 months for the two remaining charges, in exchange for a guilty imploration. Cooper on good faith admitted his offence and expressed his willingness to accept the offer. However, the respondent rejected the offer proposed by the court after his attorney managed to convince him that the court will not be able to prove his intention to kill Mundy because the victim was shot in her waist. On the first day of the trial, the prosecution proposed a substantially less attractive deal which made respondent reject the plea deal. After the end of the trail, Cooper was found guilty and was subjected to a compulsory least verdict of 185 to 365 months imprisonment. The petitioner filed an appeal at the Michigan Supreme Court based on the allegations that the advice of his attorney to decline the offer was an ineffective counsel. The canton court temporarily permitted the writ and instructed the first plea bargain presented to Cooper be employed. The court of appeals confirmed and the U.S Supreme Court accorded certiorari to review (Wynne & Klein, 2012).

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

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

To fully understand the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] on the doctrine of consideration, its is important to examine the doctrine more closely. Traditionally, modern English law has largely abandoned the benefit/detriment analysis and prefers the definition provided by Sir Federick Pollock that “consideration may be defined as an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, being the price for which the promise of the others is

“In the majority of cases that come before the courts, whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care can be determined from precedent created by earlier cases; for example manufacturers of goods owe a duty of care to consumers, motorist owe a duty of care to other road users, boat captains owe a duty of care to their passengers, teacher owe a duty of care to their students, occupier owe a duty of care to persons who come on to their property. . (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165, 166 and 169).”

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.