Question 1 Duty of care can be defined as ‘the lawful duty to prevent causing any harm or injury by taking reasonable care.’ There will be a breach of duty of care owed towards the claimant if there is an act or omission that causes the harm or injury. The neighbour principle is where an individual able to reasonably foresee that his or her actions might cause physical harm or injury to another individual or property of others, thus there will be a duty to take reasonable care in most circumstances (Law & Martin (ed.) 2013, p. 187). In the well-known case of Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562, Lord Atkin developed a principle known as the ‘neighbour principle’ to determine when duty of care might arise. The extent to which a duty of care exists will be subject to the relationship between the parties as well as the different circumstances of the case (Law & Martin (ed.)
It means carelessness in a matter in which the law mandates carefulness. A breach of this duty gives a patient the right to initiate action against negligence. Persons who offer medical advice and treatment implicitly state and undertake to have the skill and knowledge to do as under: • To undertake particular job. • To decide whether to take a case or not , • To decide the treatment suitable for particular case • To administer that treatment. This is known as an “implied undertaking” on the part of a medical professional.
Duty of care is also owed to Scarlett, the wife of Peter by following the decision in Anderson case. After determining whether duty of care exists, the following question would be whether there is a breach of duty by Dr. Jones. To prove that there is a breach of duty, proof of the defendant falls below the expected standard of care is essential. The Bolam case once again could be applied here to determine the standard of care of
The basis of the case was that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer, such that there was no harmful substance in his product, that he ahd breached his duty of care and that the appellant had suffered injury as a result. The House of Lords reviewed the few precedents and by a majority of two out of three decided in favour of the appellant, thus establishing the existence of tort of negligence for the first time. However, although it is possible to find cases in which it is arbitrated purely on the basis of foresight that a duty of care exists, it is too primitive to consider foresight or ‘reasonable contemplation of harm’ alone is the test to prove the presence of duty of care. For instance, in Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Marine , the House of Lords were of the view that, whatever be the nature of the harm caused, the court should consider foresight, proximity and whether in all the circumstances it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. 2.1.2.
The principle of autonomy is a form of respect towards a person, or is viewed as agreement does not force and act rationally. Autonomy is the right of independence and freedom of the individual claiming discrimination themselves. Professional practice reflects the autonomy when nurses appreciate client 's rights in making decisions about the care of himself. The application of moral principles of autonomy in nursing care of this example is a nurse if inoculate must be informed as to what those drugs, the principle of autonomy is violated when a nurse does not specify an action of nursing was going to do, do not offer options such as allowing a shot or injection can be done in the ass right or left and so on. Nurses in this matter have acted
The standard of care established in Donoghue v Stevenson could have been restricted and only applicable to the manufacturers of food and beverages who should have a duty of care towards the consumers. Notwithstanding, the court have decided to apply the guideline laid down in Donoghue v Stevenson to circumstances where duty of care is required. It is, therefore, the standard of Donoghue v Stevenson has been extended to include healthcare professionals who is expected to owe a duty of care towards the patients. In medical case, the focal inquiry that emerges is regardless of whether a specialist has accomplished the standard of care that is needed by law. The anticipated standard is of “reasonable care”.
The duty of care imposed by law is measured by the degree of carefulness that a reasonable person would exercise in a given situation. Duty to act is a person is under a duty to everyone at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety and protection of the people and their property. However, in certain special cases, no one is required to aid another in risk. Factual cause is when the defendant’s actions are factual causes of the harm when the harm would not have occurred without such conducts, while scope of liability is a limited liability to those harms that result from risks that made the defendant’s actions tortious. Scope of liability is divided into two parts; foreseeability, which excludes liability for harms that were sufficiently unforeseeable at the time of the tortious act that were not among the risks that made the defendant negligent; and superseding cause, which is an intervening act that relieves the defendant of liability.
The law of tort applies duties of the civil law in respect to a wide range of behavior which are relevant to a business activity, this area of law serves a very important role for consumers and those are doing business with them. As stated above in order to have a sure fire claim when claiming under the tort of negligence it is compulsory to fulfill the three requirement, the first requirement is the " duty of care " it is stated that whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care, is definitely a question of the law. it is always onus that the plaintiff establish the existence of a duty of care, but usually in most cases it is very straightforward to establish a duty of care, as long as it is provided that the relationship between parties falls within the duty of care for example a doctors owes a duty of care to his/her patients, or motorist owe a duty of care to the other road users, even architects owe a duty of care to the people who are occupying the specific building, these are just few examples of owing a duty of care. if the relationship between the parties does not fall within the established duties of care, than the plaintiff needs to be able to show the 2 things which are (1) '' it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant act or omission could cause harm to someone in the plaintiff's position ", which means that it the plaintiff must be able to show that during the time of the incident it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's code of conduct could cause harm to someone in the plaintiff's position. (2) ''the salient features of the case are consistent with the existence of a duty of care'', which also means that it must be reasonably that the defendant's code of conduct was most likely to cause harm to the plaintiff, the plaintiff must also be able to prove that the salient features of the case is consistent with the existence of the duty of care.
What is the duty owed? The outcome of some cases depend upon the relationship of the doctor and his patient.The duty owed by a doctor towards his patient. A doctor does not have to prove that or have to take the patient into confidence that who comes to him will be cured foe sure. He has to only ensure that he confers a reasonable degree of care and competence. In the case of “Laxman vs Trimback ” the court has precisely stated that the doctors have to take a reasonable degree of care and to bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge”.
In June 1984, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dickman, were issued to the shareholders, which now included Caparo. Caparo reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. Once it had control, Caparo found that Fidelity's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. Caparo sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses by determining the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been