The Violation Of The Duty Of Care

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

Duty of care is a requirement that all health and social care professionals, and organisations providing health and care services, must put the interests of the people who use their service first. They also have to do everything in their power to keep people safe of any harm, neglect or risk. As an individual healthcare worker you owe a duty of care to your service users, your colleagues, your employer, yourself and the public interest. All duty of care is described I Code of Practice. Duty of care means that you must aim to provide high quality care to the best of your ability. If for any reason you can’t do this then you must say so. You must adhere to a standard of reasonable care and you are expected to:

Thus, wilful and wanton or reckless conduct allows the court to gauge what is and is not permissible conduct under the circumstances. Second, as the court recognized in Nabozny, courts must strike a balance between "the free and vigorous participation in sports" and the protection of the individual from reckless or intentional conduct. (Nabozny, 31 Ill.App.3d at 215, 334 N.E.2d 258.) Third, the court believed that applying an ordinary negligence standard would allow virtually every participant in a contact sport, injured by another during a "warm-up" or practice, to bring an action based on the risks inherent in virtually every contact

Tort and negligence is an age has resulted in many court cases resulting in certain procedures and conditions businesses, schools or even individuals may have to abide by. However in a case due to failure to follow procedure Ray Knight, a middle student is shot. Upon further examination, it will be determined whether the school is liable for this incident, and if so what is the reasoning and what defensible grounds the school may have to stand on. Firstly looking upon the failure of procedure regarding the school and the grounds of which the student was suspended. Secondly examining further evidence of how proper notice was not given to the parents resulting proceeding the failure of procedure and therefore fulfilling four elements of negligence. While examining in defense of the school that Ray’s parents may have been irresponsible for not caring for their child. Finally, that the student maybe at fault because of his own negligence that the school may use as a defense. Ultimately coming to a distinction of whom is at fault in this case.

Under federal civil rights statute and tort negligence, Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 242, government officials can be held liable for damages if the official violates a plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the law (Peak, 2012). For example, if an officer arrests someone unreasonably, the Fourth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to be free of unreasonable seizure and the officer can be charged with misconduct and sued. Also, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of due process provides grounds for civil rights lawsuits under “special relationship” and “state-created danger” guidelines (Rutledge, 2010). Government officials are held to the duty doctrine, which states that police have a duty to protect the public where they have a special relationship. Neglectful practices not only affect an individual official charged with misconduct, but it can also adversely affect the agency and taxpayers under public relations and monetary damages.

Rule: The tort of negligence will apply once it has been established that a duty of care was owed, there was a breach of that duty, and damage resulted from that breach.

Ethically physicians are required to provide an appropriate plan of care for all of their patients without insurance bias. The discrimination lies in the fact that most uninsured patients cannot follow the plan of care they have received. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that, “uninsured adults were three times as likely as adults with private coverage to say they postponed or did not get a needed prescription drug due to cost” (2015). This creates problems for both the patient and the hospital/place where treatment was provided. If the patient cannot afford the proper post care, the patient's condition will worsen. The patient will have to decide to either go to the ER or continue on due to the fear of a high bill. The Kaiser Family Found:

Clinical negligence claims have been said to act as a `wake-up call’’ since usually it is only when a case is won that issues relating to malpractice are brought to surface. Moreover, case law demonstrates that it is usually only when clinical negligence claims are brought to the court are the judiciary provided with the opportunity to define

Whether recklessness or negligence is the legal standard that applies to Astormia for conduct resulting in injury during a high school volleyball game.

In this situation I first refuse to render services due to this is a matter of committing fraud against insurance company. Second, I would inform the school that this is unethical pertaining to my code of ethics as well as inform the child’s parent of the schools manipulation of my services as the Behavioral Analyst. Finally I would report the school’s intention to the insurance company as this might has been an on going situation with other children at the school. The Analyst responsibility is to report this to the insurance company in order to maintain their integrity of their position. According to Bailey & Burch (2016) it states that the behavior analyst needs to leave the company and seek employment else where who is more

According to the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership professional standard 4, it is imperative for the school to create and maintain environments on the sports day, that is supportive and safe for the children (AITSL, ). Safety involves minimising risks. In order to minimise risks and as an integral part of duty of care to children, teachers need to inspect equipment regularly, and also prior to the sports day and ensure that there are no defects and to discard it, if there is any, since the damaged equipment, such as a broken bucket, may cause potential harm to the students (p.94). Another important role of teachers of HPE includes, scrutinising play area regularly, and also

in several sporting activities, given health and safety consideration it is recognised that a sports organisation or individual owes a duty of care to its members. However it is also understandable that accidents can and do happen and that it is not possible to predict every eventuality. Liability for the legal duty of care would only arise when an incident occurs and it can be shown that the risk was foreseeable but no action had been taken remedy

I received the highest average score of 27 to the behaving ethically skill. Volunteering at a clinic one must pay attention to the ethic behavior. According to Northouse (2016) “behaving ethically is doing the right thing in the right way. It is holding to strong ethical standards, including being open, honest and fair with followers” (pg. 235), which I try to do at the clinic. I am honest to the followers as with other group members, since we are all working with the common goal of helping improve patients’ health, and we must be honest and fair with everyone to avoid any miscommunication and for patients to know everything related to their health. I would not compromise the ethical principles in order to meet success, since ethics is such

Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said:

     If what the person in question did met the requirements of what the standard of care calls for, then there has been no account of negligence. There are four main points that actually make up negligence. There must first be a situation in which the standard of care must be given under the given circumstances. Failing to follow the standard of care begins the case of negligence. After not satisfactorily completing the standard, there is an apparent setup for harm to the patient resulting from this failure to meet the requirements of care. When an injury is inflicted on the patient, that relates to the standard of care being violated, and that seals the case. Those are the four ingredients needed to complete a case of negligence (Cazalas 18).