Negligence and malpractice are terms that many use interchangeably, but the meanings are very different. Healthcare is one practice that has been in existence for centuries whether informally or formally. Since the first birth of any kind, the nurturing and caring of each other man or beast utilized the methods available to restore or maintain life. Since the 19th century, instructional school for nursing was established, streamlining the institution of health care today. In the previous centuries, caring for the sick was not the industry we know today. One did not worry about negligence and malpractice lawsuits, but today one has to be knowledgeable and aware of the implications of both negligence and malpractice in the 20th century practice of healthcare. This paper will explore the difference between negligence, and malpractice, and what one can do as humanly possible, to avoid being the subject of either. It will explore the importance of accurate and adequate documentation and how important it is for nurses to maintain Professional
Negligence is a breach of the duty of care owed by one person to another from the perspective of a reasonable person. The Duty of care owed in number of situations such as driver and pedestrian, doctor and patient, employer and employee, teacher and student and in many other situations. Thereby, negligence is one of the most extensive areas in tort law. In order to prove liability in negligence the claimant must show, on the balance of probability, that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care required and as a result the claimant suffered loss or damage which is not too remote.[1] Thus, it is important to prove all three elements because each of them are complex and conceptually distinct, and all of them must coexist otherwise a negligence claim will fail.
The practitioners conduct is to be judged against the state of professional knowledge at the time of the matter concerned. The acceptable standard of care is assessed by the general practice of doctors in England and Wales and is usually defined by what would be a reasonable standard of care. However there are sometimes difficulties when assessing this as there are sometimes differences of opinions on the matter. This is known as the ‘Bolam test’. An action will not amount to negligence unless it is carried out without ordinary care.
The standard of care is an anthropomorphic concept of justice. It is the degree of care a prudent person would carry out in a specific circumstance. As a general test the standard of care required is an objective one, which is of a ‘reasonable person’. The reasonable person deals with the question: What would a reasonable person have foreseen in the particular circumstance? Therefore the defendant is required to take as much care as a reasonable person would have taken in his position. However, in circumstances to deal with intentional tort, the court may apply subjective test.
Under tort of negligence, in order to be successful, claim must require the following properties as per Law in Commerce (5th edition) Sweeney, B., O’Reilly, J. and Coleman, A.
The issue in this question is whether Stella is liable for the full extent of David’s medical expenses. In order to be able to determine whether the defendant, Stella, is liable for the full extent of the plaintiff’s, David's, medical expenses, we must prove that an act of negligence has occurred. Negligence has three elements: the legal duty of care, the breach of the duty of care and the resulting damage that is caused by that breach.
Duty of Care is the first essential element that has to be established in order to prove negligence in a civil case. The Claimant should be able to prove that the duty of care was owed to him, that the duty of care was breached because it failed to meet the standards required by a ‘reasonable man’ and lastly that the claimant suffered loss and injury due to his actions which were not too remote.
To be able to successfully discuss the legal requirements needed to succeed in a negligence action we first to need to understand what is needed for something to be considered negligent and what you aim to succeed in trying to sue for it. For a successful negligence claim to be made there needs to be four elements present: duty of care, breach of a duty of care, causation, and damage. When suing for negligence you are usually seeking for compensation this can come in two forms. Firstly, it could be quantifiable loss (earnings) or unquantifiable loss (ability to play sport). In this essay, I will discuss the four elements needed and identify if they link to our scenario above.
Negligence is conduct that creates risk of harm to someone, it may cause another person injury. To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove negligence the defendant owed as a duty toward the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show how the defendant failed to act in a reasonable way, or breached their duty and how the defendant's breach is the cause of someone’s injuries (n.d., 2016).
Contributory negligence is a partial legal defence to negligence case due to the Plaintiff failing to take reasonable care for their own safety and in-turn contributed to the accident, thus the damages reduced so the Defendant only has to pay what is fair and reasonable. Pursuant to the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) (CLOLA), Section 48 of the CLA now has a presumption of contributory negligence and applies
If Bella decides to claim damages under the tort of negligence, she needs to establish grounds for the claim. There are three elements to the tort of negligence, which are the legal duty of care, breached of the duty of care, and last is the resulting injury or damage caused by the breach.
Torts and crimes are similar in that they both have to do with wrongs being righted, torts are the remedies of an offence that was made against the private interests of an individual or company (Boyd, 2015). There are two types of torts, torts of intention and torts of negligence (Boyd, 2015). Negligence is the failure of the individual to conform to the standard of reasonable care, essentially the individual fails to do what a reasonable person would do in the given situation or they act in a manner that is not consistent with how reasonable people would act (Boyd, 2015). In the case of negligence there has to be harm caused directly from the action or inaction taken by the accused. Negligence torts have been put into place so both companies and the general public are held responsible for their actions and inactions. The inaction part of negligence torts are incredibly important because it prevents people