Case Study of Negligence
Duty of care
Issue:
Does defendant (David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery) owned duty of care to plaintiff (Tony)?
Rules:
* The neighbour principle: In Donoghue v Stevenson1, Lord Atkin concluded that we all owe a duty of care to our “neighbors”, meaning those persons who we should have in mind when we are contemplating actions that we take as we go about our business and private lives. * Neighbour Defined: “My neighbors are persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”. * Foreseeability: For an action in negligence to succeed, it must be foreseeable that the act (or omission) of the defendant could cause harm to the plaintiff. The test is one of “reasonable foreseeability”, which is an “objective”. * Proximity: There must be some relationship between the parties for the duty to exist. In other words, proximity that requires care to be taken must exist.
Application:
As Tony was having the surgery in the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery, therefore, whatever will happen based on the surgery, it should be the duty of care of the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery. Be more specific, David is employed there as a full-time dentist and he was the one who attached the artificial teeth by strong dental glue instead of the way which recommended by leading dentists.
If David did not change the way of attach the teeth, Tony would never get a severe infection caused by the method of fitting of the artificial teeth.
Conclusion
Applying the neighbour principle and reasonable foreseeability, David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery do owed the duty of care of Tony. And it is foreseeable that the act of the defendant, which may be David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery, could cause harm to the plaintiff, which is Tony.
Breaching that duty of care
Issue:
Does the defendant
Issue:
Does defendant (David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery) owned duty of care to plaintiff (Tony)?
Rules:
* The neighbour principle: In Donoghue v Stevenson1, Lord Atkin concluded that we all owe a duty of care to our “neighbors”, meaning those persons who we should have in mind when we are contemplating actions that we take as we go about our business and private lives. * Neighbour Defined: “My neighbors are persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”. * Foreseeability: For an action in negligence to succeed, it must be foreseeable that the act (or omission) of the defendant could cause harm to the plaintiff. The test is one of “reasonable foreseeability”, which is an “objective”. * Proximity: There must be some relationship between the parties for the duty to exist. In other words, proximity that requires care to be taken must exist.
Application:
As Tony was having the surgery in the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery, therefore, whatever will happen based on the surgery, it should be the duty of care of the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery. Be more specific, David is employed there as a full-time dentist and he was the one who attached the artificial teeth by strong dental glue instead of the way which recommended by leading dentists.
If David did not change the way of attach the teeth, Tony would never get a severe infection caused by the method of fitting of the artificial teeth.
Conclusion
Applying the neighbour principle and reasonable foreseeability, David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery do owed the duty of care of Tony. And it is foreseeable that the act of the defendant, which may be David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery, could cause harm to the plaintiff, which is Tony.
Breaching that duty of care
Issue:
Does the defendant