A tortious liability is a civil wrong, which arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law: this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.
One of the liabilities under tort law is negligence which is one of the most common liabilities casted upon medical professionals. Such a liability draws upon unliquidated damages, which are damages not previously determined and are to be decided by the court based upon the particular facts of the case. It is in this very manner, that, the victims of medical negligence are compensated and also this is where the medical fraternity is abused upon by filing for frivolous legal suits.
Before moving further, it is important to understand the term ‘negligence’ with reference to tortious liability.
“Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury
…show more content…
Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor he is guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical
To show that a breach of professional duty occurred, there must be the concept of standard of care. Standard of care generally refers to that care which a reasonable, similar professional would have provided to the patient. Morissette writes “to establish breach of a standard of professional care, expert witness testimony becomes essential since a jury of laypersons cannot understand the distinctions of medical care.” (2014, p. 134) An emergency room doctor would be an exceptional witness to show that the inactions of Dr. Perry greatly reduced the chance of his patient surviving. In addition, the Learned Hand Formula should be applied in this case, by checking Michael’s vitals, Dr. Perry would have reduced the risk of harm and possibly death because he would have realized his misdiagnoses and would have given Michael a greater chance of
It would have been helpful to have his signature on the consent. Physicians can get too relaxed with consents and risks and benefits and documentation in the medical record. It goes by unnoticed until a patient has a complication and the physician is unable to prove what they did. Or maybe sometimes, they really did not get informed consent. The plaintiff would have still have an injuries caused by the procedure, but would likely have been considered an unfortunate bad outcome, but not negligence.
The third element of a negligence claim, causation, requires the breach of duty to be the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiff. Although the lower courts found McGee’s reckless driving to be an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, the intervening-cause rule “does not insulate the defendant if the defendant had reasonable grounds for apprehending that such [an] act [of a third party] would be committed.” Colvin wrote that
Medical professionals are liable for malpractice and could face consequences such as a lawsuit against them or being fired. These errors can be minimized by being more
If the patient were to die during surgery or procedures, the physicians would not be held accountable if the patient signs the consent form stating they were aware of the risks to their care. It’s important for the patient to ask any questions if they are confused on any information that was given to them. Even though, if the patient is diagnosed with a life-threatening disease or infection they have the right to refuse from signing the consent form. Since the patient is legally competent to make their own decisions that regard their health, they can still disregard any treatments that are being done to them. In most cases, doctors that perform experiments on the patient without their knowledge and without their consent is known as unethical human experiment.
The thesis of this chapter states that in certain situations, it is crucial to listen to a medical professional, however, in others, it is very important to listen to yourself and also to do what you feel is right. The author of Complications," Atul Gawane, has written this specific chapter to persuade the reader of his thesis. If the choice you make is incorrect, then it could potentially be a matter of life and death. Atul Gawande gives multiple examples of patients that have made wrong and right decisions to prove his point. He uses the personal anecdotes of four different people, with four decisions to prove his point.
For instance, a physician might argue that the injuries were not the result of their medical care and that their care followed their medical professional standards. Alongside challenging the element of negligence, physicians might try to prove that the injuries the plaintiff endured were a result of their own negligence ("Defenses to Medical Malpractice", n.d.). For example, the injuries a patient receives can occur if they do not inform their physician their entire medical history. As a result, they can be prescribed medications or treatments that can cause adverse reactions or injury. This is especially true in instances where physicians may try unconventional forms of treatment to care for their
The legal definition of a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another person. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which resulted in harm and are the most heard legal proceedings. Being that torts are various and plenty it must also be stated that a tort can be subjective depending upon the parties involved. Not only can a tort be subjective to the parties involved but also the litigation involved with defining that tort by a court of law is also subject to prejudice by those who may or may not see it as a wrongful act. While tort law may be a valid means of regulation in jurisdictions with established and accessible bodies of common law,
Assignment #2 Question 1: What is the purpose of tort law? What types of damages are available in tort lawsuits? Primarily, the purpose of tort law is to provide relief to injured parties for harms and/or damages caused by the person being sued for tort as well as to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm, which is ultimately aimed to deter others from committing harmful acts, whether intentional or unintentional. In tort law, damages extend not only to physical injury sustained and/or personal safety, but also to another person’s property, dignity, and reputation (emotional pain and suffering) that is recognized by statute or common law (protected interest) as a legitimate basis for liability.
After reading this case I was terribly shocked about the fact that something like this could happen in our medical history. I couldn’t believe how a patient could be neglected so much. Based on the material that we have learned the lack of ethical theory of deontology in Dr. Evan was disturbing. As a doctor Dr. Evan’s role is to care for patients, keep them away from harm and prolong their life. Though in the trial he stated as if he didn’t care.
It It f It frustrates me what Dr. Anna Pou had to go through with the lawsuits of the Memorial Medical Center incident. As Healthcare professionals, being sued for making the rightful decision for the patient and the hospital is unjust. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Hospital’s should not be so quick to make such an important decision of pressing charges to their faculty; more trust should be placed in them. In addition, she made it clear her intentions were just to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’ on national television.
Julian wants to sue David, the other player. In his complaint, which tort theory is Julian’s attorney most likely to allege and what will he have to prove for Julian to be successful? Julian’s attorney is most likely to allege Intentional Tort for his complaint to be successful. An intentional tort occurs whenever someone intends an action that results in harm to a person’s body, reputation, emotional well-being, or property. During the game David kicked Julian in the head while Julian was in possession on the ball.
Negligence: Negligence is conduct that falls below the standards of behaviour established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. (Gayle, 2015) The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might forcible cause harm to other people. (Fein man, M. 2011) Negligence can be defined as a failure to take reasonable care or steps to prevent loss or injury to another person.
1. Introduction: Radiologists recently have been advanced because of radiology expanding practices in many sensitive medical cases. Recent charges against radiologists have brought new obligations and liabilities, making them vulnerable to higher degrees of legal cases against them. Negligence legal proceedings in radiology naturally appear as a result of failure to diagnosis or poor consultation and thus failure to react medically in a timely manner.
The legal term tort refers to an action in which one person or entity causes injury, harm, or damage to another person or entity. A tort liability may occur as a result of intentional acts, a negligent act, a failure to act when the individual had a duty to act, or a violation of statutes or laws. The individual who commits the tortious act (the act leading to the tort liability claim) is called the “ tortfeasor” and is the defendant in this type of