Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'Had the ambulance arrived within 10 minutes of Jim’s call, it was likely that Carol would not have suffered any brain damage.'

    would the Human rights Act come into this? I'm thinking it wont because I can't see how any of Carol's human rights have been breached by the delay. But I'm still quite confused.

    also


    'While waiting for the ambulance, Ted, a passer-by with basic first aid training, attempted to assist Carol, although he did so ineptly, thereby worsening her injuries.'

    Does Ted owe a duty of care to Carol? is this already established that a passer by owes this duty? or would I go to donoghue and stevenson?

    Additionally, has Ted broken the chain of causation by worsening Carol's injuries?


    Any help would be much appreciated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ted owes the duty of care of a reasonable man with the skills that ted has. It is more likely ted would be liable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hey i'll try to help you im doin As Law .. so im not that great but here goess ...

    Ted is a passer by, he has the right to omit, so no he doesnt owe her a duty of care.
    - he woresened her injury which does break the chain of causation. you can refer to R v Smith .. were the soldier was stabbed and he was dropped twice and recieved inadequate medical care but the court still ruled the guy that stabbed him was the substantial cause of his death.. so the person who inflicted this on carol .. would be at fault.

    i dont understand how mentioning the donoghue and stevenson case would apply here, the claimant was actually owed a duty of care here ...

    as Ted has broke the chain of causation, weigh whether the injury that that was caused to her was that bad or what ted did made it very bad .. to be able to find out who's liable ..

    - i got kinda confused with this as its only snippets .. hope i kinda helped, sorry if its rubbish lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ted doesn't owe a duty of care as he isn't a professional. But he has broken the chain of causation. I would quote the Caparo case as it superseeds donoghue and stevenson here.

    The ambulance are liable for the brain damage, as it is reasonable to expect them to attend within 10 mins. However you can't blame them for the extra damage Ted might have caused. I would quote the wagon mound case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QStah)
    Hey i'll try to help you im doin As Law .. so im not that great but here goess ...

    Ted is a passer by, he has the right to omit, so no he doesnt owe her a duty of care.
    - he woresened her injury which does break the chain of causation. you can refer to R v Smith .. were the soldier was stabbed and he was dropped twice and recieved inadequate medical care but the court still ruled the guy that stabbed him was the substantial cause of his death.. so the person who inflicted this on carol .. would be at fault.

    i dont understand how mentioning the donoghue and stevenson case would apply here, the claimant was actually owed a duty of care here ...

    as Ted has broke the chain of causation, weigh whether the injury that that was caused to her was that bad or what ted did made it very bad .. to be able to find out who's liable ..

    - i got kinda confused with this as its only snippets .. hope i kinda helped, sorry if its rubbish lol

    thanks for the help it was very useful!
    sorry it was just snippets, in brief, Jim caused Carol the damage by losing control of his vehicle. So essentially, if Ted has broken the chain of causation Jim will not be liable?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scotland26)
    ted owes the duty of care of a reasonable man with the skills that ted has. It is more likely ted would be liable.
    do you know a case that suggests Ted would be judged according to the reasonable man test.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by weird_n_wonderful)
    do you know a case that suggests Ted would be judged according to the reasonable man test.
    the idea of the reasonable man is for judges to use it as a standard... and they would ask amongst themselves; ''what would the reasonable man do in this situation''.

    a good case to reference would be ;; In the Nettleship v Weston case the claimant was giving driving lessons, on the 3rd lesson the learner crashed into a lamp-post and the claimant was injured. it was decided that the defendant, although a learner driver would be judged by the standard of the average competent driver ..

    there are also different 'reasonable man tests' specifically for

    - Children
    - Processionals
    - Learners - Must reference this one .. the case for this is the one i explained above

    had to get my law book out for this one, got a little confused, hope i helped though
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by weird_n_wonderful)
    thanks for the help it was very useful!
    sorry it was just snippets, in brief, Jim caused Carol the damage by losing control of his vehicle. So essentially, if Ted has broken the chain of causation Jim will not be liable?
    This is sort of a difficult area of law. Medical care given for injuries, even if the medical care is incorrectly administered, does not break the chain of causation. In Robinson v Post Office, the defendant was liable for injuries that resulted from improperly administered medical care necessitated by its negligence. This suggests that Jim would be liable for Carol's injuries, including the injuries that result from poor medical care. If the medical care is entirely unreasonable (e.g., amputating the wrong limb), then that breaks the chain of causation--but it doesn't sound like Ted's cack-handed act will break the chain of causation. In any case, you need to separate the injuries that result from the accident itself, and the injuries that result from Ted's inept medical treatment.

    The post above is wrong--there is not a separate test of reasonableness for learner drivers. I don't remember the rule for physicians, but I'm pretty sure learner doctors are held to the test of a reasonable doctor, not to a separate standard.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by weird_n_wonderful)
    thanks for the help it was very useful!
    sorry it was just snippets, in brief, Jim caused Carol the damage by losing control of his vehicle. So essentially, if Ted has broken the chain of causation Jim will not be liable?
    Well, you have to weigh up the facts, he could still be liable for legal causation Jim could still be the 'Substantial and opperating cause of the crime' no matter what Ted has done ...

    but then again, as the chain of causation broke, you should quote the 'intervening act'' ; for jim to be found not guilty, the chain has to be broken by an UNFORSEEABLE act. ; is it unforseeable that someone would try to help carol & worsten her injuries ?

    quote the case R v Jordan ; in this case the victim of a stabbing was given large doses of medication in such a way that it flooded his lungs and killed him - the defence argued succesfully that the medical treatment was so awful that their client should not be found guilty of the victims death ..

    i felt like i was waffeling on there .. hope i helped
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    This is sort of a difficult area of law. Medical care given for injuries, even if the medical care is incorrectly administered, does not break the chain of causation. In Robinson v Post Office, the defendant was liable for injuries that resulted from improperly administered medical care necessitated by its negligence. This suggests that Jim would be liable for Carol's injuries, including the injuries that result from poor medical care. If the medical care is entirely unreasonable (e.g., amputating the wrong limb), then that breaks the chain of causation--but it doesn't sound like Ted's cack-handed act will break the chain of causation. In any case, you need to separate the injuries that result from the accident itself, and the injuries that result from Ted's inept medical treatment.

    The post above is wrong--there is not a separate test of reasonableness for learner drivers. I don't remember the rule for physicians, but I'm pretty sure learner doctors are held to the test of a reasonable doctor, not to a separate i standard.
    maybe i worded what i said wrong, i know there isnt a separate test, they are held to the same standard .. i was just saying that the reasonable man test applies to a range of things eg; Learners & childrenn
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm halfway through my law degree in Australia, and just finished Torts (managed a distinction). The law is very similar so I'll do my best to help you.

    "Had the ambulance arrived within 10 minutes of Jim’s call, it was likely that Carol would not have suffered any brain damage."

    Irrespective of this, it can still be held that the defendant caused the plaintiff's injury. Therefore the failure of the ambulance to arrive within 10 minutes does not absolve the accused of liability. The "but for" test is applied here (the authority for this in Australia is March v Stranmare, but it's probably different in the UK.


    "While waiting for the ambulance, Ted, a passer-by with basic first aid training, attempted to assist Carol, although he did so ineptly, thereby worsening her injuries."

    No duty of care is owed by a passer by to any individual they encounter. Although he behaved ineptly he will not be found to be liable for her injuries due to the 'Good Samaritan rule'. As long as he was not negligent (and we are told he was inept instead), the court will not find him liable, as he was acting to the best of his ability in trying to help Carol.


    I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any more questions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by weird_n_wonderful)
    do you know a case that suggests Ted would be judged according to the reasonable man test.
    havent got my notes with me, however there is a case where a man suffers arsenic posioning, the doctor tells him hes fine and to come back in the morning, he dies overnight. THere is a good speech in that
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Ted may be judged by the case of Wells v Cooper [1958] which i believe is the reasonable amateur. Double-check that though as i haven't done tort since last year.

    But to sum up your questions:

    1) Human Rights don't come into it. *However* there is a case where a condition was worsened because an ambulance arrived yet - i think it's Kent v Griffith [2001] where an ambulance takes 40 minutes to arrive and this delay (should have been 14 minutes) meant that the man's condition permanently worsened. If you're struggling, look at that.

    2) As stated, it seems unlikely that Ted is liable in negligence because he may not have breached the duty, if, indeed, he had one.

    3) Ted's act has to have basically completely altered what happened to break the chain - Knightley v Johns is a good case of breaking the chain of causation. Further, if it was an "agony of the moment" action it may not break the chain, nor will it break the chain if the intervening act is foreseeable (as it may well be - it's not inconceivable that someone may attempt to administer first aid to someone who has been in an accident).

    I haven't done tort for a while but i got a first in the paper last year so if there are any other issues you're stuck with, give us a shout and i'll see what i can recall/what my notes dredge up Though people doing tort at the moment may be more useful.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.