2NEGLIGENCE Table of Contents Issue.................................................................................................................................................3 Rules................................................................................................................................................3 Application......................................................................................................................................4 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................4 Reference.........................................................................................................................................5
3NEGLIGENCE Issue The main issue in this case is whether Pat’s doctor would owe the three students any duty of care. Rules As per the common law of torts for the establishment of negligence four elements must be proved. These four elements are duty, breach, cause and harm. There should be a duty of care, the duty should be a breach of that duty, the breach should be causing harm to the plaintiff and because of the breach the plaintiff has suffered harm. The test of duty of care was first established in the caseDonoghue v Stevenson[1932]. In the case the court held that for establishing the duty of care there must be some general concept of relation present between the parties. As per the egg shell skull rule the defendant would be liable for the unforeseeable and uncommon reactions of the plaintiff towards the negligence of the defendant. The rule was first established in the caseSmith v Leech Brain & Co[1962]. In the caseEsanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords[1997] it was held that any person would not be held liable for any third party loss that was not foreseeable from the beginning.
4NEGLIGENCE Application In the case it was seen that Pat was having difficulty in staying awake in lectures and she contacted her doctor who was negligent in failing to diagnose. The doctor had a duty of care towards Pat, he breached the duty, because of this breach Pat developed painful swellings and by her contact three fellow students developed mumps and were unable to sit for the exam. This can be considered as the causation and harm of the negligence of the doctor. Applying the test of duty of care established in Donoghue v Stevenson it can be seen that there was a general concept of relation present between the doctor and Pat. They had a doctor- patient relation for which the doctor owed her a duty of care. However there is no general relation between the three students and Pat’s Doctor. Applying the egg shell skull rule, established in the caseSmith v Leech Brain & Co [1962], it can be said that the doctor would be liable for the effect of his negligence. Applying theEsanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords[1997] it can be said that the defendant would not be held liable for unforeseeable third party losses. However in this case the losses were foreseeable as mumps is carried on through contact. If Pat’s doctor diagnosed the disease on time then those three students would not have developed the disease and would be able to sit for their examinations. Conclusion Thus it can be concluded that Pat’s doctor owes the three students a duty of care.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
5NEGLIGENCE Reference Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] All ER 1 Esanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords[1997] 188 CLR 241 Smith v Leech Brain & Co[1962] 2 QB 405