The harm arose from both a delayed diagnosis of Jane by Shakir and the Senior House Officer’s (SHO) partial diagnosis of meningitis – prescribing an antibiotic that made her situation …show more content…
The onus is on Jane to prove to the court the on a balance of probabilities that damage caused was from meningitis not being diagnosed and treated in time. This is generally referred to as the standard of proof. Additionally, because you cannot make another claim at a later date for the same injury she should be advised to also look claim for medical negligence of the SHO for not immediately sending Jane to …show more content…
In context, could Shakir have foreseen meningitis and encephalitis was the cause of her complaints when she visited him and that it was gradually damaging her brain? The usual symptoms of these diseases were present – the rash, stiffness, feeling odd etc… and should have prompted further investigation. In Home Office, the court found the D owed a duty of care to the C and was held vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees who were young offenders. This was because they were in a position of control over them and it was foreseeable that harm would come from their omission to properly supervise. Analogous to Jane’s issue, the hospital should owe a duty to care for Shakir’s omission to perform a comprehensive rather than a cursory examination of Jane – his omission that caused the damage was foreseeable and leaving these types of diseases untreated will worsen over time causing irreparable