The Death Of Tara ( Victim )

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.

Negligence is the failure to do something. Many medical cases are filed as medical malpractice suits, “medical malpractice is professional misconduct. Malpractice differs from negligence because it is performed by a license medical professional” (Flight 2). The case of Horton V. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center can be used as a primary example where negligence, “failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm” (Flight 33), is visible.

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).

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.

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

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

With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.

The judicial precedence set by Tasaroff v Regents of the University of Caliornia.17 Cal.3d 425,551 P.2D 334,131 Cal. Rptn 14 (1976) demonstrates vividly that unlike their counterparts in other medical disciplines, Psychiatrists may need a lower disclosure threshold given that they may see patients who are mentally volatile and potentially dangerous!( Farlex,2012).In this scenario, Prosenjit Poddar, a mental health patient student at the University of California, informed his Psychologist of his intent to murder Tatiana Tasaroff two months in advance. The Psychologist went ahead and disclosed this information to the campus police who held the patient for a brief period and released him upon deeming him rational only to end up killing Tasaroff !The

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.

If such breach of duty is established the next question is whether that breach of duty caused the death of the victim. If so, the jury must go on to consider whether that breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime.” Here Gail owed a duty of care, she was in breach of that duty and it resulted in the death of Dwain as it has been established that she could have saved his life. Therefore, she could be held guilty of murder or manslaughter if the jury decides that her act was so significant that it altered the patient’s fate. As to breaking the chain of causation, it seems that Gail’s and Patrick’s actions are concurrent causes to the victim’s

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

Negligent mens rea, sometimes called criminal negligence, is when a person simply fails to acknowledge the risks of a potential accident

Lauren is a doctor who by chance was present at the scene of the incident. She rushed to offer medical aid to a badly injured Pedro surely with the hope to save his life. In doing so Lauren entered a responsibility which her voluntary title required and a duty of care towards her patient which she visibly breached. Whilst treating Pedro, she failed to acknowledge Pedro’s attempts to bring to her attention a note on his person relating to his severe medical condition. It is important to know what his medical condition was in this scenario as this will determine whether or not Laurens negligence was the eventual cause of death. We must ask, would Pedro still of died but for Laurens actions? If his medical condition meant that he could not be treated correctly at that exact moment, then he may have still died en route to the hospital leaving David solely responsible. However, if it had been a condition which would have changed Laurens treatment in a way possible with the facilities available at the scene then it can be argued that by failing to check the note the causation link between Laurens omission and Pedro’s death is

Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.

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