Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Case studies for bad duty of care
Duty to care principle
Case studies for bad duty of care
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Case studies for bad duty of care
The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) is the primary legislation used in Victoria that pertains to and governs claims for damages in cases that have resulted in personal injury or death; excluding transport accidents and work related injuries. Section 48 of The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) specifically applies to duty of care; that is, whether or not a person, persons or company etc. had and/or have a legal obligation to an injured party. This piece seeks to evaluate the usefulness of section 48 of The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) in determining whether or not a duty of care exists between parties of varying circumstances, to highlight the Sections shortcomings and to point out which aspects of common law and other relevant legislation supplement the sections inadequacies. …show more content…
In the case of D’orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) the court held that under common law advocates are immune from claims of negligence that are relative to their conduct inside of court, and those out of court which directly relate to in court proceedings. For all other conduct outside of court however, advocates are liable for duty of care. This is because if such collateral or retaliative litigation were allowed then this would adversely affect the administration of justice. Likewise, some government agencies as well as police are protected under certain circumstances from negligence claims. Examples of such instances may be observed in Sullivan v Moody (2001) and Tame v New South Wales (2002). In Sullivan v Moody (2001) the court held that medical practitioners should not be held liable for reparations brought about by a third party because their duty to patients must be fulfilled without the threat of secondary negligence claims. Similarly in Tame v New South Wales (2002) the court the held that police officers should be exempt from claims of negligence pertaining to police investigating crimes and recording relevant material, regardless of its effect on pertinent persons because it is an administrational requirement of the profession. Others protected with immunity from negligent litigation include; but are not limited to rescuers; as in Chapman v Hearse 1961 , good Samaritans; protected under section 31 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , volunteers undertaking ‘community work’; part IX Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , blood donors and food donors; protected under section 135 of the Health Act 1958 (Vic) and section 31E of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and that the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
Learning from what Dr. Anna Pou had to face with the lawsuits she was dealing with makes me cringe. As Healthcare professionals, having to worry of possibly being sued for believing what is right for the patient or as a whole for the hospitals health is ridiculous. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Often time’s society look at courts cases as a battle versus two oppositions, but Dr. Pou’s case it is not. In her statements from national television she states saying her role was to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’.
The system of crime and law enforcement had hardly changed in Britain since the medieval times. Justices of the Peace or JPs were appointed by the Crown since 1361. Before the night watchmen and parish constables were introduced a primitive police force was introduced and the JPs were assisted by constables who only worked part time and were very unreliable as the pay was really bad. The early stages of the force consisted of a night watchmen and parish constables, who were prior to the creation of the main police force. Watchmen were groups of men, usually authorised by a state, government, or society, to deter criminal activity and provide law enforcement. Constables were required to apprehend anyone accused of a felony and bring criminals to a justice of the peace. They also had a general responsibility to keep the peace. There was no expectation that they would investigate and prosecute crimes because of limited responsibility and training. Night watchmen patrolled the streets between 9 or 10pm until sunrise and were expected to examine all suspicious characters. In the City of London, the City Marshall and the Beadles (Parish wardens) conducted daytime patrols. Similar to the night watchmen, primary responsibilities were to patrol and deter, drunkenness, beggars, vagrants and prostitutes and to act as a deterrent against more serious offences. Over the course of this period, the arrangements by which men served as constables and watchmen changed significantly, to incorporate how felons were detected and apprehended.
The Human Rights Act of 1998 came into power in October 2000, and it represent an honourable epitome of ethical and moral ideologies. As for any idealistic expectations, one must query the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act of 1998 at meeting all its aims in the context of aiding, safeguarding and supporting those in need of assistances from the Social Services in the UK.
report and stated the aim of the bill was not to make the law more
The Human Rights Act 1998, under which rights are to be 'brought home' (1), incorporates the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 into domestic law. It appears to raise issues in the UK concerning the separation of power, as it seems to provide the courts news powers that dispute Parliament sovereignty and the executive on a certain level. This essay is going to discuss the scope of the judiciary power through the content of HRA 98, then through the competing rights concerning privacy and press freedom and finally through the ones concerning fair trial and freedom of expression.
On the morning of May 17th, 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two-car collision. Police and Ambulance were dispatched and arrive on scene at the intersection of Kenny and Fernley Street. Ambulance conducted various assessments on Ms. Walker which revealed no major injuries and normal vital signs. Mrs walker denied further medical investigation and denied hospital treatment. Later on, Queensland police conducted a roadside breath test that returned a positive reading, police then escorted Ms. Walker to the cairns police station. Ms. Walker was found to be unconscious, without a pulse and not breathing. An ambulance was called but attempts to revive her failed (Coroner’s Inquest, Walker 2007). The standard of Legal and ethical obligation appeared by paramedics required for this situation are flawed and require further examination to conclude whether commitments of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice were accomplished.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
The defendants must be advised according to the laws relating to the “Offences Against the Person Act 1861” (Hereinafter will be referred as OAPA 1861) and “Criminal Justice Act 1988” (Hereinafter will be referred as CJA 1998). In the given scenario, it is seen that Hamish is a friend of Callum. Callum asked for the compass from Hamesh. Hamesh hands it over and as Callum reaches to collect it, the needle of the compass pricks him(Callum) on the finger.
Was the 1918 Representation of the People Act the main reason for the decline of Liberals and the rise of the Labour Party in the years 1918-1929?
There has been much discussion on the Offences against the person act (OAPA) 1861. Many see the act as outdated and clumsy, its wording unclear and as being difficult to explain and prosecute under. The OAPA is used in 100,000 prosecutions every year. The Law Commission has attacked the OAPA for creating constant legal argument and delay because of unclear wording and wasting thousands of pounds in taxpayer's money in appeals. Both the Law Commission and the Government have looked at possible reforms for the act in order to improve its position in English Law.
In October 2010, the Equality act became law and it has been updated and consolidated other acts like the Race relations Act 1976 and the Disability and discrimination Act 1995.
Becoming a “whistleblower” in what is legally known as a “qui tam” lawsuit, a private individual may collect up to 30 percent of the amount recovered, depending on how the case is prosecuted. “Qui tam” is an abbreviated Latin phrase “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” which means “Who sues on behalf of the King as well as for himself.” You may report potential instances of waste, fraud, or abuse related to HHS’s programs on their hotline Website. The department will appoint a Whistleblower Ombudsman. At this site you can review individual state false claims acts. Click this link and view the department’s most wanted health care fraud
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)