Negligence Law: Report on the Case of Mary v. Dr. Joyce - Analysis

This report analyzes a negligence case involving Mary and Dr. Joyce, focusing on the principles of Australian negligence law. The case involves Mary, a university student, who suffers injuries after tripping over a school bag carelessly placed by minors, Charlotte and Louise, and further complications arise due to medical negligence by Dr. Joyce, who prescribes medication to which Mary is allergic. The report examines the issues of duty of care, breach of duty, and causation, referencing relevant legislation and case law, including the Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act 2008 and the D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the diocese off Brisbane [2017] case. It discusses the potential liabilities of Charlotte, Louise, and Dr. Joyce, considering the standard of care expected of professionals and the implications of failing to meet those standards. The report concludes by suggesting potential legal outcomes and remedies for Mary, including compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering, and potential penalties for Dr. Joyce.

NEGLIGENCE LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
Issue........................................................................................................................................1
Law and Rules........................................................................................................................1
Application.............................................................................................................................2
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Australian Law Reform Commission has presented various laws and regulation which in
turn bring adequate legislative and legal environment in country. To defend the society from
unlawful acts, fraud and crimes the parliamentary efforts made in passing the bills. In present
assessment the case of Mary and Dr. Joyce will be considered as per the negligence law. Legal
advice will be given to Mary as to have appropriate jurisdiction over her case and overcome with
damages she has over her health. To give the satisfactory legal advice various Australian
Negligence laws will be proposed.
MAIN BODY
Issue
 Charlotte and Louise are minors and carelessly put their bags on the corner of their seats.
Thus, such factors incurred in the accident that have been faced by Mary.
 Mary falls down as she did not notice that bag is on her way and she broke down her
right arm and tooth.
 She got admitted into a hospital and her doctor Joyce prescribed her some medicines as
she told him that she was Allergic to Penicillin drug.
 Dr. Joyce was quite engaged with other patients and he forgot her allergies from the drug
as well as prescribed the two tables on which one is pain killer and other one is antibiotic
which contains penicillin.
 She took medicine which had affected her health as she experienced shortness of breath,
stomach cramps and dizziness on which she had to get admitted in the hospital
immediately.
 She has been diagnosed as the allergic reaction in her medication and after completion of
2 days she got discharged from hospital.
Law and Rules
 Division 2 duty of care1
 Section 162,
1 Law of negligence and limitation of liability act 2008
2 Law of negligence and limitation of liability act 2008
1

 Division 5- Section 18 & 19
 D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the diocese off Brisbane [2017]3
 Breach of Duty
Application
In relation with the case of Mary and Dr. Joyce in accordance with the Negligence law
there are various achievements and sections that will be helpful to Mary in terms of having better
jurisdiction and adequate legal solution (Negligence, 2015). Incident between Charlotte, Louise
and Mary on which both children has placed the bag carelessly on corner and which results in
great injury to Mary. In this, both are minors and were unaware with the damages will be
incurred through their improper attention and carelessness. Moreover, here Mary would not sue
them for the damages incurred to her (Barry, 2017). On the other side, as she went to hospital for
having the treatment and prescription for her injured right arm, she told her doctor Joyce relevant
with her injuries from the Penicillin drug.
Section 18 and 19
Dr. Joyce did not pay attention over her allergic drugs and does not write in his notes.
Similarly, in relation with the section 18 and 19 which determines that standard of care expected
of persons holding a possessing a particular skill. Therefore, in this case, Joyce is a doctor who is
a particular professionals and required good knowledge and skills. Moreover, it can be said that,
he has to pay attention over each patient in terms of prescribing as well as facilitating them with
proper treatment (Smith and Carver, 2018). It is standard duty and on which defended person has
responsibility to provide appropriate care to plaintiff. Therefore, the court will make decision in
accordance with opinion of professional. Role of Joyce is to prescribe appropriate medication
and treatment to Mary which is needed to have proper attention over all the circumstances.
Therefore, damage incurred to Mary was life threatening as she has the allergic reactions.
Moreover, in relation with this Joyce has to make payments of the penalty as all her medical
charges have to be paid by him (Hafeez-Baig and English, 2017).
Section 16:
3 D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the diocese off Brisbane [2017] QSC 103 (Supreme Court
of Queensland, Byrnes SJA, 31 May 2017)
2

According to this section it can be said that, the plaintiff in the indecent has to prove the
unawareness of risk in the court. It ascertains that, Mary has to present the evidence of her illness
and the allergic reactions from the medicines which have affected her on her health (Eburn and
Cary, 2018). Moreover, in this regard Mary can claim damages to Joyce as per the risk
associated with prescription provided by him. She can claim the medical charges she paid for the
treatment and 2 days of stay in hospital.
Division 2- duty of care:
In accordance with this division which determines a duty of care on which a person is not
negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm. Moreover, there are various
precautions which will be helpful in avoiding the risk and providing the appropriate jurisdiction
to the Plaintiff (Negligence elements, 2017). In relation with the case of Joyce and Mary it can be
said that it is required to have the adequate attention from Joyce on Mary's words. It is a duty of
doctors to take care of each patient with proper attention and consider their all the conditions. He
must have considered all her problems which are need to be addressed and have proper medical
care.
Breach of duty:
In accordance with the breach of duty it took place when the standard of care does not
meet with required job and efforts from a person. Moreover, the person who is appointed on a
standard job and duty which requires the particular professionals skills need to be committed
towards his work. Similarly, Joyce has yo be committed with his duty of providing the adequate
care and facilities to Mary or any patient. It is the breach of duty when he ignores her allergies
and provide her wrong medication (Law of negligence and limitation of liability Act 2008, 2016).
Therefore, such breach of duty has lead her to life threatening reaction. Thus, here the law
proposed special rights to dependent person on which the court will consider the probability of
harm, the level of damage incurred from the such negligence. Thus, it can be said that Mary was
serious got affected from the drug and she has been admitted in hospital for 2 days which has
challenged her physically and financially.
D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the diocese off Brisbane [2017]:
3

The case is relevant with the case of D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the diocese
off Brisbane in which are person works in the organisation as a support worker. The duty of the
worker is to drive her clients to medical appointments therefore one day a plaintiff was injured
and claimed her. Additionally, it was denoted as the breach of duty which derived to punish her.
Thus, in relation with the case of Dr. Joyce and Mary it can be said that Joyce has breach his
duty such as ignoring the facts he has prescribed the wrong medicines to her. Thus, In relation
with such case the court has proposed that the defended party has to make payments to the
plaintiff in accordance with the level of damage incurred by them (do Rozario, Yates and
Grolman, 2018).
Conclusion
In consideration with the proposed case and the principles of Negligence it can be said
that there is need to have appropriate jurisdiction and judgement which will be fair to both the
parties. Moreover, as per the case of Mary and Joyce which represents that there has been breach
of duty which were based on standard duty. Thus, in this regard the responsibility lies for
providing the most appropriate medical attention and he must be committed towards his duties.
Therefore, the most favourable judgement will be provided to the parties is that Mary has to
claim here medical charges from Joyce as per the law of negligence (Cains, Lilly and Doggett,
2018). Joyce has to make payments for such claimed amount as well as has to banned for a
period which will reduce the occurrence of such incidents in the near future.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of above mentioned report it can be said that there are various legislatures
and laws that will result in providing the fair jurisdiction to the parties which have affected by
the negligence. Moreover, the law provide adequate protection to the parties and rights to claim
their damages from the defended. Furthermore, in relation with the case of Joyce and Mary
where Mary as a plaintiff got affected by the wrong prescription provided by the doctor which
has led her to life threatening incidents. Additionally, Joyce has breach the duty and will be
liable to make payments of all the charges incurred during such operations.
4

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Barry, C., 2017. Statutory modifications of contributory negligence at common law. Precedent
(Sydney, NSW). (140). p.12.
Cains, T., Lilly, D. G. and Doggett, S. L., 2018. Bed Bugs and the Law in Australia. Advances in
the Biology and Management of Modern Bed Bugs. p.403.
do Rozario, M., Yates, D. and Grolman, L., 2018. Could cybersecurity class actions be on their
way to Australia?. Governance Directions. 70(1). p.29.
Eburn, M. and Cary, G. J., 2018. You own the fuel, but who owns the fire?. International
Journal of Wildland Fire. 26(12). pp.999-1008.
Hafeez-Baig, M. J. and English, J., 2017. Re-thinking the Requirement for a" Recognisable
Psychiatric Illness" in the Law of Negligence. Tort Law Review. 25(2). pp.92-99.
Smith, M. K. and Carver, T., 2018. Montgomery, informed consent and causation of harm:
lessons from Australia or a uniquely English approach to patient autonomy?. Journal of
medical ethics, pp.medethics-2017.
Online
Negligence. 2015. [Online]. Available through
:<https://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/InformationAboutTheLaw/BirthLifeandDeath/
Personalinjury/Pages/Negligence.aspx>.
Negligence elements. 2017. [Online]. Available through
:<https://www.gotocourt.com.au/personal-injury/vic/negligence/>.
Law of negligence and limitation of liability Act 2008. 2016. [Online]. Available
through :<https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016Q00058>.
5