Law of tort

EDmon

There are a few aspects of the law of tort that I have queries about. Thus I would appreciated any information / answers to the following;

1. Do prison officers owe a duty of care to prevent a prisoner from taking their own life after showing suicidal tendencies ?
As they are in a position of 'control' does this imply responsibility ?

2. Do rescue response teams such as coast guards, etcetera owe the same duty as that of an ambulance responding to an emergency call ?
2.1 And if for e.g. a 'rope' of a sea rescue helicopter were to break when harnessing victims to safety, thus the victim drowned would the rescue response team be liable for damages resulting from this 'botched' rescue?


3. When drawing up a will the client takes some of the documentation home for them to be signed, and subsequently she forgets to do so, as does the solicitor to finalize the documentation. In particular if the client were to die, thus the will couldn't be enforced.
Would the solicitor be liable for not completing his job?

4. In medical negligence, if a plastic surgery patient were to end up with results that made her look aesthetically worse that prior to surgery is the surgeon liable ? Would it make a difference if the surgery was preformed by an intern ?
4.1. Also, If a psychiatrist were to recommend for their patient with low self esteem to undergo surgery could they incur any liability for this advice ?
And if a job contract was conditional on the perspective employee getting plastic surgery, say for tv, could they be liable if the surgery was unsuccessful ?

5. Finally, rather hypothetically if there were a live camera in a car streamed to the driver's husband, and she crashed, her own fault The husband the suffers from nervous shock upon seeing the live footage. Can he sew anyone for this ? possibly the wife's insurance company ?

If there are any Irish cases with similar facts to the above please do mention them.

Predalien

Homework?

EDmon

Predalien wrote: »

Homework?

Exam prep aspects of the negligence topics that I don't understand!

Procrastastudy

Healy's Tort book or grab yourself a manual from GCD, Indo or City.

Remember public policy comes into play, especially in tort law.

EDmon

EDmon wrote: »

Exam prep aspects of the negligence topics that I don't understand!

It's sue not sew.

Get the books and read the cases. Nothing else anyone here tells you is worth relying on.

Best of luck

Procrastastudy

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing else anyone here tells you is worth relying on.

With the exception that every Tort exam should have Cricket and Denning mentioned at least once :P

Strawberry Fields

Do get the book but as a pointer for medical negligence read Dunne v National maternity hospital, intern? No surgeon of like skill... anyway read it.

For the tv read the decision of the House of Lords in Alcock. Re Hillsborough.
There's Irish case law on nervous shock as well.

Procrastastudy

godeas16 wrote: »

Do get the book but as a pointer for medical negligence read Dunne v National maternity hospital, intern? No surgeon of like skill... anyway read it.

For the tv read the decision of the House of Lords in Alcock. Re Hillsborough.
There's Irish case law on nervous shock as well.

If you're reading anything on Hillsborough - post facto and public policy should be screaming points for essays

Strawberry Fields

Procrastastudy wrote: »

If you're reading anything on Hillsborough - post facto and public policy should be screaming points for essays

Yeah would depend on who was running the stream, if it was your own personal stream might be different, but in that one broadcasting rules stipulated what could be shown.

Procrastastudy

godeas16 wrote: »

Yeah would depend on who was running the stream, if it was your own personal stream might be different, but in that one broadcasting rules stipulated what could be shown.

I think that scenario is just thought up to have a discussion on the zone of danger and aftermath thingies. Jesus I've forgotten everything from last year.

drkpower

godeas16 wrote: »

Do get the book but as a pointer for medical negligence read Dunne v National maternity hospital, intern? No surgeon of like skill... anyway read itl.

not sure if that defence would be of anyuse if an intern was permitted to do a plastic surgery operation....

Procrastastudy

drkpower wrote: »

not sure if that defence would be of anyuse if an intern was permitted to do a plastic surgery operation....

Oh yeah now I remember - elective surgery the standard of care is higher than that of standard medical treatment. Its amazing what comes back to you when you're revising something else!

OP All this stuff comes back to haunt you in Criminal Law - unless you do that this year. Enjoy

Strawberry Fields

drkpower wrote: »

not sure if that defence would be of anyuse if an intern was permitted to do a plastic surgery operation....

It's a deviation from the general approved practice surely to allow an intern to perform the surgery. I said nothing about a defence;) Seems to be inherently defective.

drkpower

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Oh yeah now I remember - elective surgery the standard of care is higher than that of standard medical treatment.

you are probably thinking of consent, where the duty to disclose risks is (usually) higher in the context of elective surgery.

The standard in respect of the performance of surgery is no different in respect of elective or non-elective procedures (usually).

The point about an intern performing surgery is that 99% (probably 100%) of 'plastic surgery' procedures would be beyond the skillset of an intern and it would be negligent for an intern to be performing such surgery in the first place (except perhaps very small parts of the surgery in a highly supervised fashion).

The 'practitioner of like skill and experience' 'defence' in Dunne v NMH would not be available in such circumstances.

drkpower

godeas16 wrote: »

It's a deviation from the general approved practice surely to allow an intern to perform the surgery. I said nothing about a defence;) Seems to be inherently defective.

Precisely; you mentioned the 'practitioner of like skill and experience' 'defence' - it is usually used to protect, for instance, a Registrar from being expected to have the same skill/experience as a consultant. But that wouldnt be available in circumstances where an intern performed an op he shouldnt have been performing in the first place.

Strawberry Fields

drkpower wrote: »

Precisely; you mentioned the 'practitioner of like skill and experience' 'defence' - it is usually used to protect, for instance, a Registrar from being expected to have the same skill/experience as a consultant. But that wouldnt be available in circumstances where an intern performed an op he shouldnt have been performing in the first place.

Oh I see how that came across, I was just putting it forward as the first limb in the test to establish medical negligence. It's a difficult one to remember on Saturday night after a couple of drinks.:p

EDmon

godeas16 wrote: »

For the tv read the decision of the House of Lords in Alcock. Re Hillsborough.
.

In the Alcock case the judgement accepted that live video stream of a graphic contact could act a suitable proximity in the immediate aftermath of the accident causing PTSD. But if in this hypothetical situation the wife's fault for crashing, who could the husband sue for his nervous shock suffered ?

I know Irish case law like the Mullally v Bus Eireann case Denham J awarded the plaintiff for nervous shock, but who would the defendant be in my hypothetical situation?

EDmon

drkpower wrote: »

you are probably thinking of consent, where the duty to disclose risks is (usually) higher in the context of elective surgery.

The standard in respect of the performance of surgery is no different in respect of elective or non-elective procedures (usually).

The point about an intern performing surgery is that 99% (probably 100%) of 'plastic surgery' procedures would be beyond the skillset of an intern and it would be negligent for an intern to be performing such surgery in the first place (except perhaps very small parts of the surgery in a highly supervised fashion).

The 'practitioner of like skill and experience' 'defence' in Dunne v NMH would not be available in such circumstances.

So if the surgeon was present during the operation supervising and the intern still messed up the surgery, could litigation still occur, as most surgeries would have a consent form with a disclaimer ?
Also is it even legal to offer a job under the condition that someone undergo such surgery ? or would that simply be the perspective employees fault for deciding to fulfill the conditions of employment ?

The cases that I have been reading don't answer these questions

Procrastastudy

I'd read cases last in all honesty; after a good text book and a few articles.

Strawberry Fields

EDmon wrote: »

So if the surgeon was present during the operation supervising and the intern still messed up the surgery, could litigation still occur, as most surgeries would have a consent form with a disclaimer ?
Also is it even legal to offer a job under the condition that someone undergo such surgery ? or would that simply be the perspective employees fault for deciding to fulfill the conditions of employment ?

The cases that I have been reading don't answer these questions

Depends on the consent form does it say an intern can do it. Consent can be given in form and not in reality if the patient doesn't understand what he is signing, can't remember the case that's from.

That operation breaches constitutionsal right to bodily integrity and convention on human rights, not to mention equality and employment law, I seriously doubt contractually it could be enforced.
As a tort my reading is that it calls for focus on causation.

drkpower

EDmon wrote: »

So if the surgeon was present during the operation supervising and the intern still messed up the surgery, could litigation still occur,

Yes.

EDmon wrote: »

as most surgeries would have a consent form with a disclaimer ?

Consent does not act to forgive negligence.
And a consent form does not have a disclaimer.

EDmon wrote: »

Also is it even legal to offer a job under the condition that someone undergo such surgery ? or would that simply be the perspective employees fault for deciding to fulfill the conditions of employment ?

Not sure what you are getting at here.

Strawberry Fields

EDmon wrote: »

In the Alcock case the judgement accepted that live video stream of a graphic contact could act a suitable proximity in the immediate aftermath of the accident causing PTSD. But if in this hypothetical situation the wife's fault for crashing, who could the husband sue for his nervous shock suffered ?

I know Irish case law like the McLaughlin v Bus Eireann case Denham J awarded the plaintiff for nervous shock, but who would the defendant be in my hypothetical situation?

I'm no expert but Third-party limited liability insurance covers all damages caused by you in a single accident up to a maximum of €30 million. Forseeability and proximity are an issue also.

nuac

Who set those questions?

I.e. Re wills, normally it is signed in front of solicitor and another witness - not sent home to be signed

Re Med Neg question - "intern" is a rather loose word. May refer to someone who hasnt yet qualified as a doctor.

After qualification a doctor works his/her way up thru the grades - Junior House Officem Senior House Officer, Registrar, Specialist Registrar.

Registrars may perform various procedures ( usually under supervision )


Anyhow as already advised hit the text and hit the caselaw - a quick fix is no use.

If still available look for Glanville Williams - Learning the Law

Good luck, but remember it can be a very tough profession

drkpower

nuac wrote: »

Re Med Neg question - "intern" is a rather loose word. May refer to someone who hasnt yet qualified as a doctor.

After qualification a doctor works his/her way up thru the grades - Junior House Officem Senior House Officer, Registrar, Specialist Registrar.

Registrars may perform various procedures ( usually under supervision )

Fyi, an intern is a very specific term actually; it is a doctor in their first year of practice. They are doctors. They get paid. they have much the same professional responsibilities as other doctors. They can be sued. But they have only provisional registration with the medical council. Following succesful completion of intern year, they can get full registration. Junior house Officer is the corresponding UK term. I n Ireland, after intern year,you become a Senior House Officer.

EDmon

drkpower wrote: »

...

Not sure what you are getting at here.

I was just wondering whether there was a legal issue if an employer were offer employment on the condition that the perspective employee underwent plastic surgery ?

Thanks for your previous response!

drkpower

EDmon wrote: »

I was just wondering whether there was a legal issue if an employer were offer employment on the condition that the perspective employee underwent plastic surgery ?

Strange one; you might have to give more info - what was the employment in question? what was the nature/reason for the surgery?

EDmon

nuac wrote: »

Who set those questions?

In general I did, they were just situations that I wasn't sure whether what I had learned would extend to regarding negligence. Mainly in anticipation for possib..le problem questions...

nuac wrote: »

... Re wills, normally it is signed in front of solicitor and another witness - not sent home to be signed

Would this be the same in the case where the solicitor drafted the appropriate documentation for joint tenancy, (still with regards to inheritance) and then the client took it home to sign, but forgot about it as did the solicitor. The client subsequently dies, and the intended inheritance is not fulfilled. Would this be negligence on the solicitors part for allowing her to take it home, or simply the clients for forgetting to sign it ?

nuac wrote: »

...
Registrars may perform various procedures ( usually under supervision )


Anyhow as already advised hit the text and hit the caselaw - a quick fix is no use.

If still available look for Glanville Williams - Learning the Law

Good luck, but remember it can be a very tough profession

Thanks for your the advice and help!

EDmon

drkpower wrote: »

Strange one; you might have to give more info - what was the employment in question? what was the nature/reason for the surgery?

Hypothetically of course, to get a nose job (reduce its size) for a tv presenting job. Surgery happens and in unsuccessful as his nose is unnaturally small and is actually worse than the bigger nose he started with. So he no longer gets the job.

Was the original condition of employment unlawful ?