Vicarious Liability At Wales V Lepore

Thao violated the standard practice and principle of her profession. According to the ANA code of ethics Ms. Thao violated provision 2, 3, and 4. As a nurse Ms. Thao’s primary commitment was Ms. Gant, which she failed to fulfill. Ms. Thao volunteered to work extra eight-hour shift after working sixteen hours (Mason, 2007). She was knowingly taking the risk about of her duty and safety of the patient. Ms. Thao failed to finish the delegation that was given to her due to overwork by which she dishonored provision 4. She violated provision 3 by not reading the warning label on the drug bag and opening the locked cabinet with out the permission of a

In the Code of Ethics for Nurses provision 4 states “The nurse has authority, accountability, and responsibility for nursing practice; makes decisions; and takes action consistent with the obligation to promote health and to provide optimal care.” This was not done, there was no regard for human life. The patients in the hospital were treated as a burden. A meeting was held where the doctors agreed that

I also think Nurse Jackie is responsible because she did not completely follow policy and procedure. I also feel that Dr. James is responsible to because he did not follow policy and procedure or check on Nurse Jackie work. I would say that Nurse Jackie is about 30 percent responsible of the death the patient. I believe that Dr. James is about 70 percent responsible for the death of the patient because he failed at the task that any other doctor in his position would have done. The hospital is 100 percent responsible because it is the legal obligation of the hospital to make sure each staff have the proper training and capable of preform their jobs

Health care professionals are obliged by common law to obtain consent before any medical treatment is given to a patient. Every person has the right to decide what happens to his or her body, therefore, can choose to accept or refuse medical treatment (Townsend & Luck, 2013, p. 93). This article aims to outline what is determined as lawful consent and how it applies in paramedic practice.

The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (“the Act”) has been moderately principled and extremely effective in its reforms to duty of care in negligence. In light of the facts, the main relevant area of reform in the Act has been to liability for psychiatric injury. These reforms have largely been principled in following the recommendations of the Ipp Report and common law, but have made deviations in order to better achieve the goal of reducing liability for psychiatric injury. These have been very effective changes in achieving this goal. However, the principles the Act is based on, contradict legal and normative principles, creating injustice by disentitling people and enhancing the distinctions between physical and mental injury.

This case is a result of a seventy-two year old woman that died in the care of a nursing facility after being transferred from the hospital due to an overdose in morphine. When the victim was transferred to the nursing home, the nurse practitioner on duty at the time noticed the double prescription of morphine on the orders and instructed a nurse on duty to confirm with the hospital pharmacist that this was intentional or if they should be revised. The nurse obeyed orders and the transferring hospital’s pharmacist confirmed that the orders were correct, so the victim was admitted.

This hypothetical situation illustrates a common problem faced by nurses, as the roles we serve can be multifaceted and demanding. It is often tempting to cut corners, especially if we feel there will be no actual harm done. This, however, does not justify professional misconduct nor allow us to expand our practice beyond our designated scope. Not only do the Nursing Practice Acts define our role as nurses, they also designate what nurses may not do. The purpose of the Nurse Practice Acts is to protect the patient from harm. The Nurse Practice Acts state that the scope of nursing does not include acts of medical diagnosis or the prescription of therapeutic or corrective measures as stated in section 301.002. Thus, by signing prescriptions

Patients are not obliged to undergo treatment because a healthcare professional feels it appropriate or considers he is acting in the best interests of his patient by treating him/her. Respect for individual's autonomy and the right to consent to or decline treatment are now generally accepted as important values in health care. Which was accredited in 1991 in the patient’s Charter. This gave people the right to have any anticipated treatment, including knowing any form of risk involved in the treatment and any alternatives, plainly explained to them as they retain the right to choose whether or not to have their bodily integrity interfered with, or damaged by others. Failure to gain consent is regarded in law as Trespass against the person and in breach of accountability under the NMC standard of conduct. If a patient is touched by a healthcare professional without consent, this constitutes a crime of battery in English law (Mason & Laurie, 2010). If a patient claims that he/she has not been sufficiently informed about the risks inherent in a treatment and alternatives to the treatment then liability does not lie in battery but rather in negligence. Battery refers to any non-consensual touching even if it does not harm the

It’s heart breaking to think of our loved ones being mistreated by those we’ve entrusted their care to. Unfortunately, nursing home staff misconduct happens every day, sometimes with tragic consequences. In fact, in a study by the National Center On Elder Abuse, it was reported that 1 in 3 U.S. nursing homes were cited for violations of federal standards that had the potential to cause harm or that had caused actual harm to a resident.

The nurse aides committed assault and battery. Assault- an unlawful act that places another in

Vicarious criminal liability forces criminal liability on one person for an act another person committed. I believe vicarious criminal liability should and shouldn't exist. I don't think it should exist in some cases because lets say you loan your car to a friend for a couple days because he needs it and he gets into a accident the day after you loaned him the car. Due to the Vicarious liability, both the driver and the owner can be named in the lawsuit. I believe this would violate the actus reus which is the action or conduct that is a constituent element of a crime, also known as "Guilty Mind". You can't control your friend's actions like you can control your own.

For nurses, the emergency room is considered to be one the most stressful environments. This is because they are exposed to patients coming in who are experiencing small issues such as the common cold. While at other times, they have to work with someone that is in serious condition (often unconscious). These extremes mean that there are tremendous amounts of liability and stress inside the emergency room. To fully understand what is taking place there will be a focus on potential issues, one that is the most pressing and legal cases surrounding this area. Together, these elements will provide the greatest insights as to the challenges that emergency room nurses are dealing with. (Buettner, 2009)

The medication error that I was personally involved in was administering a drug to the wrong patient while doing the medication round with a registered nurse. This occurred because the guidelines for identifying the patient by going through the ten rights was not followed and there was no effective communication between the patient and I due to the communication barrier of the patient not being sound of mind. Moreover, another barrier of communication was that we did not recognize that the patient was not wearing their hearing aids which resulted in the patient agreeing to the medication administered. In addition, the administered drug was schedule 8 classed and was checked off by two registered nurses, but the administration of the drug was not witnessed by both nurses (Boyd 2013 p.9). Given that two registered nurses were not witnessing this process, it was difficult to judge if the patient had consented to receiving the drug. Furthermore, the patient was not informed of the procedure and warned of material risks through effective communication before administration. This communication error between the nurse and the patient can result in breach of standards and legal action can be taken for assault and battery against the nurse who administered the injection.

Although it’s less fortunate miss diagnosing is more common than the average person realize. Mostly accruing when individual receives too much or not enough medication. The nurse that administer this medication didn’t expect it to cause his death, she provided what she thought was right. The hospital could possibly show consent forms signed by the patient indicating the right to treat their condition. The hospital has a “reasonable duty” to notify the patient that a replacement nurse

The English Law on Vicarious Liability An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of employment. This is known as ‘vicarious liability’[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability is arguably the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the