A successful claim of negligence must include certain elements of tort. This includes that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the care was breached by negligent conduct, that this breach caused damage to the plaintiff and that this damage was reasonably foreseeable, and the damage is quantifiable (pg. 5 of the negligence pdf). In order to satisfy the first two conditions The plaintiff must first establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant omitted an action which a reasobable person of equal standard, that is of physician special skills, would do and this omission falls below the physician’s duty of care. Dr. Andrews owes such a duty of reasonable care both to his patients and arguably to third parties,
…show more content…
Reasonable foreseeability requires the plaintiff to demonstrates that a ‘reasonable person in the position of the defendant would recognize that negligent behaviour may cause injury to another person.’ (pg 108). With regards to remoteness of damage, and whether the kind of damage is reasonably foreseeable depends on the kind of damage resulted from the negligent action (is this kind of damage foreseeable from said action). (pg 109). As such, the damage is one a reasonable individual of equal position of Dr.Andrews would expect if [AB were given a certificate] were eventuated. I argue that a reasonable medical professional should at least have the foresight that an individual with a current medical history of epilepsy, given permission to operate a motor vehicle, could likely endanger the life of another. In this manner, the damages were …show more content…
Application of the ‘but for’ test establishes such a relationship. This stipulation finds that if the plaintiff would not have suffered damage but for the negligence of the defendant, then the causation component of the claim of negligence is satisfied. (paragraph 50 and 20-23]. The QCAT report indicates certain instances that demonstrate this condition may not be [satisfied]. In paragraph 50, Dr. O’Sullivan is noted in his assessment about “concerns about…his [AB] memory, and his [AB] overall compliance with medical instructions.” With consideration of this instance, I contend, that based on AB’s persistence conduct, it is possible AB could have commenced operation of a motor vehicle, regardless of Dr. Andrew’s issue of certificate. Similarily, Dr. Andrews may have a partial defence of contributory negligence. (pg 195) Specifically, the defendant needs to demonstrate that “the plaintiff failed to take the precautions a reasonable person would have for their own protection and; the damage was partly what caused the the plainfiff’s negligent act and was reasonably foreseeable.” [contrary to instructions from the specialists instructions, AB still inisisted and eventually acted against expert opinion. I would argue a reasonable person would assume that with prior seizures and accidents likely relataed that such ation were not reasonable for personal protection and such conduct was a causable element
Reasonable foreseeability requires the plaintiff to demonstrates that a ‘reasonable person in the position of the defendant would recognize that negligent behaviour may cause injury to another person.’ (pg 108). With regards to remoteness of damage, and whether the kind of damage is reasonably foreseeable depends on the kind of damage resulted from the negligent action (is this kind of damage foreseeable from said action). (pg 109). As such, the damage is one a reasonable individual of equal position of Dr.Andrews would expect if [AB were given a certificate] were eventuated. I argue that a reasonable medical professional should at least have the foresight that an individual with a current medical history of epilepsy, given permission to operate a motor vehicle, could likely endanger the life of another. In this manner, the damages were …show more content…
Application of the ‘but for’ test establishes such a relationship. This stipulation finds that if the plaintiff would not have suffered damage but for the negligence of the defendant, then the causation component of the claim of negligence is satisfied. (paragraph 50 and 20-23]. The QCAT report indicates certain instances that demonstrate this condition may not be [satisfied]. In paragraph 50, Dr. O’Sullivan is noted in his assessment about “concerns about…his [AB] memory, and his [AB] overall compliance with medical instructions.” With consideration of this instance, I contend, that based on AB’s persistence conduct, it is possible AB could have commenced operation of a motor vehicle, regardless of Dr. Andrew’s issue of certificate. Similarily, Dr. Andrews may have a partial defence of contributory negligence. (pg 195) Specifically, the defendant needs to demonstrate that “the plaintiff failed to take the precautions a reasonable person would have for their own protection and; the damage was partly what caused the the plainfiff’s negligent act and was reasonably foreseeable.” [contrary to instructions from the specialists instructions, AB still inisisted and eventually acted against expert opinion. I would argue a reasonable person would assume that with prior seizures and accidents likely relataed that such ation were not reasonable for personal protection and such conduct was a causable element