Law of Tort: Adriana's Case - Negligence and Defenses Analysis

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a law of tort case involving a pregnant political journalist, Adriana, and the medical negligence she experienced. The report details the legal issues arising from the case, including the doctor's breach of duty of care by failing to adequately inform Adriana of the risks associated with her condition and continuing to work. It examines the elements of negligence, such as duty of care, breach of duty, and consequential damages. The report also explores potential defenses that the doctors might raise, such as the judgment rule and patient's contribution to the outcome. The analysis highlights the importance of informed consent, the standard of care expected of medical professionals, and the liability for negligent actions. The report considers the actions of various medical professionals involved, the impact of delayed treatment and the role of a junior doctor in the operation. The conclusion emphasizes the doctors' negligence as the primary cause of the patient's death, highlighting the importance of proper medical care and adherence to ethical standards. The report underscores the legal implications of medical malpractice and the potential for civil litigation in such cases.

LAW OF TORT

TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................3
(a)Legal Issues related to the case............................................................................................................3
(b) Possible defences that may be raised..................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCE............................................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION
Tort refers to wrong it could be wrongful act or civil wrong whether incidental or
accidental, because of which injury has occurred to other. Torts includes all the cases of
negligence and of intentional wring that results in harm. Law of tort is the major area of law
inclusive of real property, contract and criminal laws. This laws results brings maximum civil
litigation as compared to other other categories. Intentional torts could also be considered as
crimes like assault, betraying, frauds, conversion and trespassing he property. When duty of care
is breached by person that was owed to other gives rise to liability of negligence. There are
situations where defences against negligence are available. Considerable body of case laws and
special rules have developed further 4 field in the negligence.
(a)Legal Issues related to the case
In the present case Adriana a political journalist that became pregnant suffered from Pre-
eclampsia a health of which she was unaware and discovered the disease after admitting to
hospital after she collapsed at work. She was also having high blood pressure that was normal in
the pregnancy stage. On check up doctor suggested that was normal but when she collapsed
again the DR William reported that she was suffering from pre-eclampsia. The doctor suggested
that it would be fine if she rests and also if she continues to work. She asked doctor about if she
chooses to rest. She was suggested there are no special implications if she continues to work.
Here the doctor is held liable as he did not explained the consequences if she continues to work.
No advise was given regarding the effect on baby and the mother. Doctor has not performed his
duty regarding the consequences that she could suffer. This has caused the mother to suffer with
other disease and health issue that harmed both baby and the mother. It is treated to issues of tort
as this has raised the issues of health and safety and also the liability for negligence. Doctor has
neglected his duty regard to informing the patients about the consequences. Doctors are required
to give complete information to the patient. Also it is the professional duty of doctor to perform
his duties with due diligence and care. They should give judgement after making complete check
up of the patients. Doctor has breached the duty of care, it has breached causing harm to patient.
It may be possible that ate the time she consulted doctor she was not having much complication

regarding the disease. Doctor can state the defence based on reports only. If the report were not
normal than doctor is liable under law of tort.
Adriana was suffered from the pre-eclampsia and in that situation, she went to the Dr
Williams for treatment. Doctor give treatment to Adriana and when she consults to the doctor
about treatment then Doctor state that she must not worry and if want can do bed rest and if
intend to do work then in that case can also join office. Main mistake that Doctor Williams made
is that he knows that if patient will do work then in that complications can occur and her health
can degrade. Even he had prior knowledge he allows patient to work on job. This can be
considered as careless behaviour and ultimately patient pay for it.
Many health issues can occur in patient body like it could impair kidney and liver
functions, cause blood clotting problems, cause pulmonary oedema (fluid on the lungs), cause
seizures and, in severe forms or if left untreated, maternal and infant death. Preeclampsia affects
the blood flow to the placenta, often leading to smaller or prematurely born babies. Hence, act of
not informing patient about such kind of injuries can not be considered tolerable mistake in no
case.
Adiana as expected feel pain and she went to the GP which give some treatment and after
two weeks patient got faint. Later Dr Ferris do her treatment and state that urgent pregnancy is
required because some problems are already observed in her body. Adiana husband Peter was in
New York for work purpose and she requested to Doctor if pregnancy can be delayed until his
husband comes. Doctor was prepared to delay pregnancy even he had known that such kind of
situation can negatively affect patient. Again, it can be said that Doctor show careless behaviour
in his work. Dr Ferris did not advise Adriana of the effects of preeclampsia on the baby, nor did
she advise her of the consequences of further delay.
Peter arrive late to see her at hospital as he was delayed by 3 days because of bad weather
and transportation. Finally, after arrival of husband operation happened but because of non-
availability of Doctor Junior Doctor do operation which was not well trained. As he does
operation and it was successful as baby born. However, during operation he do some mistake and
due to this reason Adriana suffered from haemorrhage. She become ill and send to hospital
through ambulance but accident happened and damage to her body increased and ultimately, she
died.

It can be said that totally patient died because of careless behaviour of the Doctor. For
example, if GP would take blood pressure seriouslythen in that case it was possible to detect
health issue at early stage but disease get developed. Moreover, Doctor Williams show careless
behaviour and he does not guide patient in proper manner due to which disease further developed
and Doctor decide for early birth of the child. Such kind of careless behaviour play crucial role in
death of the patient. Apart from this, junior doctor does operation who was not experienced in
this line because of which operation does not happened in proper manner and problem further
increase and contribute to the death of patient.
Overall, on analysis of case it can be said that Doctor breached their respective duties. In
other words, it can not be said that condition was already critical and Doctor efforts were not
sufficient. It is totally mistake of all Doctors.
Tort of negligence
Following is the tort of negligence rules and regulations that must be followed by the
business firms. Duty of take care: One of the important parameter in this rule is that defendant must be
liable to perform duty towards plaintiff. Means that if one does not have liability towards
plaintiff then in that case defendant cannot be made responsible for damage1. Case of
Grant VS Australian Knitting Mills LTD where individual purchases woollen underwear
but face skin irritation. On investigation it was observed that seller of underwear forget to
remove sulphate from undergarment. Hence, seller of underwear was held liable. Duty to home: Tort of negligence cannot be applied in case just because problem caused
by one to other. Both parties defended and plaintiff interest must be associated with each
other. If in any case two parties are not associated with each other and problem caused by
one to another then in that case law of tort cannot be applied. Duty must be towards plaintiff: As per rules it is not sufficient that defendant owed a
duty to care. As per rule defendant must owed a duty towards a plaintiff2. In other words
1 Murphy, J. G. 2018. Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence. Routledge.
2 Daye, C. E., and Morris, M. W. 2018. North Carolina Law of Torts. LexisNexis.

it can be said that one have responsibility because of its task but defendant must also be
liable towards plaintiff, only in such kind of case on can file case against any other
person under tort of negligence. In case of Bourhill VS Young in 1943 plaintiff was a
fishwife was doing some business work on road. Suddenly on other side of the road
accident happened. There was something in front of the plaintiff and due to this reason
she was unable to see accident. Plaintiff hears sound of collide and went to see whatever
happened. She view blood spread on road and feel shock in brain nerves3. She gives birth
to baby and become ill. In the court case was filed against motor rider. Court give verdict
that motor rider cannot be held responsible because he directly does not cause anything to
the plaintiff. Hence, court does not assume motor rider liable for health issue of fisher
women. This decision was taken because motor rider does not have any liability towards
Plaintiff. Breach of duty to take care: As per this rule case can be filled against an entity under tort
of negligence only in case when breach of duty to take care exactly happened. For
example in case of Municipal corporation of Delhi VS Sushila Devi court give verdict
that monument collapsed because municipal corporation does not take care of 80 year old
monument. Hence, duty to take care is breached4. Consequential damage to plaintiff: This rule state that damage must be actually caused
to plaintiff because of breach of duty to take care
Strength and weakness of in application of law of facts
All above points applied to the present case and due to this reason Peter can sue Doctors
for their negligence. Interest of the died patient and doctor was correlated strongly. It was
liability of doctors to take care of patient health. Breach of duty happened because doctors do not
perform their responsibility correctly and because of this patient suffered from disease. Damage
also happened to the patient and due to this reason after giving birth to baby she again need to
3 Negligence as a tort meaning essential and defences., 2019. [Online]. Available through :<
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1297/Negligence-As-A-Tort:-Meaning-
Essentials-And-Defences.html>.
4 Keren-Paz, T. 2018. Torts, egalitarianism and distributive justice. Routledge

admit to hospital. This was because of negligence of the doctor. However, case get weak when it
is observed that her life can be saved if she would reach hospital on time, but this does not
happened and accident take place and on spot she died.
(b) Possible defences that may be raised
GP to some extent can be defended on basis or ground of judgement. Doctors have option
that on receipt of symptoms from patient side he can recommend varied tests.However, Doctor
recommend these tests on judgement basis. If Doctor on obtaining information about symptoms
think that condition is serious he suggest tests. On other hand, if he thinks that it is normal in
particular situation then Doctors usually not suggest test. GP do same thing and he make
judgement as think symptom was normal. However, whatever he thinks proved wrong. Practice
GP followed is also followed by normal doctors and due to this reason to some extent GP cannot
be considered culprit.
Dr William also suggest patient to do bed rest but later entity ask about work option then
in that case doctor use his judgement power and state that he does not think that there is any
problem in doing work. It was patient liability to understand that Doctor main emphasis is on bed
rest not work. Secondly, no one knows that what sort of work patient do during normal day.
Hence, to great extent mistake is made by the patient and due to this reason Doctor cannot be
considered culprit entirely.
It was also patient mistake to wish that on arrival of husband she will allow for operation.
Doctor think that there is no problem and due to this reason, he extends time of baby born. In no
situation junior Doctor cannot be defend because he was not obstetrician and even though
allowed to do operation, because of his negligence and same from side of senior one patient
reach to situation where she died. Thus, on this ground in no situation junior doctor can be
defended.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that due to doctor negligence back to back multiple disease happened to
the died patient. However, ambulance accident happened and during accident relevant entity
died. When she was on ambulance she was already injured and further jerk during ambulance
accident lead to death. If she was not injured earlier because of doctor negligence it was possible

that she does not get died in accident. Thus, partially doctors can be held responsible for death of
patient. Thus, it is recommended that Peter must file case against doctors in local court.

REFERENCE
Books and journals
Daye, C. E., and Morris, M. W. 2018. North Carolina Law of Torts. LexisNexis.
Keren-Paz, T. 2018. Torts, egalitarianism and distributive justice. Routledge
Murphy, J. G. 2018. Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence. Routledge.
Online
Negligence as a tort meaning essential and defences., 2019. [Online]. Available through :<
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1297/Negligence-As-A-Tort:-Meaning-
Essentials-And-Defences.html>.