Analysis of Negligence and Duty of Care in a Law Case Study

This case study examines a negligence claim against Yvette, a medical professional, concerning her treatment of Benjamin. The analysis focuses on establishing the elements of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and proximity. The case explores whether Yvette, despite her lack of qualifications, owed a duty of care to Benjamin and if she breached this duty by failing to properly diagnose his condition. The application section highlights the importance of healthcare providers adhering to a higher standard of care. It also discusses the foreseeability of the injury and whether Yvette can successfully use a defense against the claims. The conclusion finds Yvette liable for negligence, and that Benjamin is entitled to damages for the injury caused to him. References to relevant legal precedents and scholarly sources are included to support the arguments.

Stott’s Colleges
Bachelor of Business
Assessment Cover Sheet
Subject: Fundamentals of Law
Code: 101
Student Name: Raghubir Singh
Student ID: 1029169
Email: [e-mail]
Plagiarism means using the ideas of someone else without giving them proper credit. That someone else
may be an author, critic, journalist, artist, composer, lecturer, tutor or another student. Intentional
plagiarism is a serious form of cheating. Unintentional plagiarism can result if you don’t understand and
use the acceptable scholarly methods of acknowledgment. In either case, the College may impose
penalties which can be very severe.
Declaration:
“I certify that I can provide a copy of the attached assignment if required.”
“I certify that the attached assignment is my own work and that all material drawn from other sources
has been fully acknowledged.”

Issues:
Whether Yvette is liable for negligence towards Benjamin
Did Yvette owe higher duty of care towards Benjamin?
Can Yvette use any defense against the breach of duty of care?
Rules:
The tort of negligence may be defined as legal wrong that is caused to a person due to the
failure of the person to exercise reasonable care towards the aggrieved person against any foreseeable
risk that any other reasonable person would have averted if they were in his position (Goldberg, Sebok
& Zipursky, 2016).
The following are the essential elements of negligence:
 Duty of care: Those essential segments will secure those regions of a commitment owed toward
you quit offering on that one persnickety should another. As was held in Donoghue v Stevenson
[1932] UKHL 100. The person owing a duty of care must act in a way that any responsible person
should act in the given circumstances. Any form of deviation from such conduct would result in
an act of negligence (Gordon & MacKay, 2018).
 Breach of Duty- the defendant fails to exercise the reasonable duty of care that he owed to the
plaintiff.
 Causation- the action or omission of the defendant has resulted in the causation of the injury
sustained by the plaintiff;
 Proximity- a legal proximity or a legal relationship must exist between the parties to establish
duty of care of defendant towards the plaintiff.
In regards to health care, the health professionals and other medical service providers are obligated
to avert acts or omissions that could be anticipated to cause injury to the clients or patients (Palmer &
Maclachlan, 2018). Therefore, such health care providers must foresee such risks and undertake
reasonable care to avert such risks (Flynn, 2016).
The aggrieved person is entitled to seek damages against the injury sustained due to the breach of
duty of care committed by the defendant (Abraham, 2017). The plaintiff shall be entitled to damages if it

is established that the injury was foreseeable and was a direct outcome of the act or omission of the
defendant.
Application:
In this case, Yvette examines the patient without the permission of senior and any authorization.
Yvette being a medical professional owes a duty of care towards Benjamin as he is the patient and a
doctor owes a duty of care towards his patients as was held in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100.
However, she was aware that she is not a qualified doctor and that it was important to inform a
qualified doctor about Benjamin’s weakness. Thus amounts to a breach of duty of care that she owed to
Benjamin by concealing she is not a qualified medical professional and not informing the qualified
doctor about Benjamin’s medical issue.
Moreover, on complaining about chronic fatigue, Yvette tells Benjamin that it is because he has
been studying hard he is feeling weak. After accident, Benjamin was diagnosed with a sleeping disorder
that could have been diagnosed and treated by a competent doctor, if it was informed while he
mentioned about it to Yvette and if she had informed to the competent doctor. This signifies that the
risk of injury was foreseeable.
Being a health care provider, she owed a higher duty of care towards the patients and the injury
caused to Benjamin was the direct causation of her negligence to diagnose him properly owing to her
incompetency. Moreover, any reasonable person under the given set of circumstances would have
informed a competent doctor after revealing her qualifications.
Since Benjamin met with the accident immediately after returning from the hospital due to the
failure of Yvette to diagnose his sleeping disorder, the injury sustained due to her negligence is not
remote.
Yvette may use good faith in her defense stating that she found Benjamin very tired so, she
considers this is due to his studying hard he may be suffering from such condition and that she could not
foresee the risk of injury that might cause to him.
Conclusion:
Yvette is liable for negligence and Benjamin is entitled to seek damages against her for the injury caused
to him.

References
Abraham, K. (2017). The forms and functions of tort law. West Academic.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
Epstein, R. A., & Sharkey, C. M. (2016). Cases and materials on torts. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Flynn, M. (2016). Medical Malpractice–Medicolegal Perspectives: Negligence, Standard of Care.
Goldberg, J. C., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Triangular Torts and Fiduciary Duties.
Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress. Wolters
Kluwer law & business.
Gordon, A., & MacKay, K. (2018). The element of wrongfulness. Without Prejudice, 18(1), 32-33.
Levy, N. M., Golden, M. M., & Sacks, L. (2016). Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and
Related Defenses(Vol. 1). California Torts.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G., & Harder, S. (2017). Torts: cases and
commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Palmer, R., & Maclachlan, M. C. (2018). Clinical negligence. ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE
MEDICINE, 19(1), 35-38.