TORTS LAW REGARDING DUTY OF CARE

Torts Law Regarding Duty of Care



Torts Law Regarding Duty of Care

With reference to the legal position of Fishers, the doctor is subject to liability for fault or negligence, resulting from application of Article 1101 and 1902 of the Civil Code when attributed to medical liability. The basis for which the plaintiff can file against the negligence is that Stevenson has gone through suffering at present and he is possibly to suffer serious liver damage in the future. It is inappropriate to have committed acts or, not having had the care required for the particular case (Sloan, Chepke, 2008, 94-111). That is, not having met the minimum standards and standards of conduct to deal with the case and failing to comply with the standards of the medical profession. It is necessary to compare their negligent conduct, in conjunction with the principles governing their behaviour patterns. There are two main duty of care; the duty recognized law and that which is inferred by the circumstances. Our case breaches the duty of care recognized by law.

It is important to view Fishers' position in light of the cases. The cases that are essential in understanding this concept are Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Palsgraff v Long Island Railroad Co, Caparo v Dickman, and or Bourhill v Young. The case of Palsgraff sets the notion that an individual is not responsible for the unforeseen circumstances in the cases where the duty is not enforced, however on Dr Jonas, the duty of care was imposed when Stevenson came to him for treatment and as he failed to perform his duty with care, he is liable of the tort of negligence.

In Australia, the duty of care depends on the directness of the act that interferes with the autonomy of plaintiff. Fishers can sue the doctor on the account of improper diagnosis and a careless prescription for Stevenson. On the other hand, the chemist Sonya can also be held accountable on the account that she gave high strength medicine to fisher without even mentioning of it on the prescription (Shapo, 2003, 54-62). The plaintiff is in a position to file against Mr Jonas as the primary purpose of tort law is to provide relief for damages that occur from a harmful act and to deter others from committing that act. Some torts are also crimes, such as physical assault or murder. Others, however, are acts that do not break any laws but still create victims in need of compensation. For example, a doctor who harms a patient by failing to provide adequate care may be found to be negligent and to owe that patient damages, even if that doctor's actions cannot be considered criminal.

The breach of the duties of physician behaviour generates responsibility for breach of Article 1101 of the Civil Code, if an action is brought over the contractual liability. Thus, for a redress of damages for the victim support concurrence of both types of responsibilities (Henderson, 2007, ...