A: A Duty of Care Is Owed To the Plaintiff
1. Foreseeable Plaintiff Test(Reasonable Foreseeability Test)
As an expert, the cardiologist owed a duty of care to the patient and must live up to the standard of competence as one would expect from a member of their profession. The cardiologist was not in the right state of mind as he was having a bad day and was sleepy, therefore, the injury of the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. There was a proximity between the parties due to the fact that the defendant should have been aware that his actions of doing the operation in that state posed a risk of danger to his patient.
2. Policy Considerations- May Negate Existence Of A Duty
Sam had signed the consent form which stated that a side effect …show more content…
Since the plaintiff faced a greater injury due to both of the defendants’ conduct, the defendants are liable for the consequences of the injuries.
Crumbing Skull Rule:
The crumbling skull rule prevents only the resident surgeon from being liable for the plaintiff’s loss since the plaintiff’s loss of the sponge being in his body was inevitable. Even if the surgeon had not removed the sponge, Sam would still face damages as he was encountering pain by serious internal infection and critical levels of temperature already due to the previous operation by the cardiologist.
D: Damage
This type of case, in which two incidents caused injuries and involved a prior condition has been recognized by courts as compensable. A similar case called Athey v. Leonati, involved the plaintiff who “suffered back injuries in two successive car accidents, and soon after experienced a disc herniation during a stretching exercise. A mixture of the injuries from the two accidents and a preexisting condition caused this” (“Athey v Leonati.” Case Brief Wiki. Web.). In the Athey v. Leonati case, the court allowed the
1. Foreseeable Plaintiff Test(Reasonable Foreseeability Test)
As an expert, the cardiologist owed a duty of care to the patient and must live up to the standard of competence as one would expect from a member of their profession. The cardiologist was not in the right state of mind as he was having a bad day and was sleepy, therefore, the injury of the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. There was a proximity between the parties due to the fact that the defendant should have been aware that his actions of doing the operation in that state posed a risk of danger to his patient.
2. Policy Considerations- May Negate Existence Of A Duty
Sam had signed the consent form which stated that a side effect …show more content…
Since the plaintiff faced a greater injury due to both of the defendants’ conduct, the defendants are liable for the consequences of the injuries.
Crumbing Skull Rule:
The crumbling skull rule prevents only the resident surgeon from being liable for the plaintiff’s loss since the plaintiff’s loss of the sponge being in his body was inevitable. Even if the surgeon had not removed the sponge, Sam would still face damages as he was encountering pain by serious internal infection and critical levels of temperature already due to the previous operation by the cardiologist.
D: Damage
This type of case, in which two incidents caused injuries and involved a prior condition has been recognized by courts as compensable. A similar case called Athey v. Leonati, involved the plaintiff who “suffered back injuries in two successive car accidents, and soon after experienced a disc herniation during a stretching exercise. A mixture of the injuries from the two accidents and a preexisting condition caused this” (“Athey v Leonati.” Case Brief Wiki. Web.). In the Athey v. Leonati case, the court allowed the