Dr. Jones V. Kate Case Summary
It is unquestionable that Scarlett is the primary victim of the case, as Henry had expressed his intention of causing harm to her by threatening her with violence for a few months. In other words, it would be fair to say that Henry’s action was reasonably foreseeable as it was obvious that any sort of torment over an extended period of time would have negative psychological impact on a person. Although Scarlett did not suffer any physical injury, the imminent threats she perceived from Henry retriggered her depression, which was remission from ten years ago. Irrespective of whether the psychiatric illness was predisposition or not, the defendant that did the threatening act must bear the responsibility which applies to Scarlett’s case.
…show more content…
Jones and Peter – Omission Giving Rise to Wrongful Birth Thirdly, Peter can make a potential claim against Dr. Jones in regards to whether Dr. Jones owes Peter a duty of care for his negligence in performing the vasectomy operation? In the case of Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust, it was validated that regardless if the child is suffering from a sickness or not, as long as the doctor was the cause of the pregnancy, he will still be held liable for what he did. The medical practitioner might not cause the disability of the child; it was suffice to result from the wrongful pregnancy.
Dr. Jones performed an unsuccessful vasectomy operation on Peter, which resulted in the unwanted birth of a child (Steven). The proximity between Dr. Jones and Peter is obviously identified, as they have a special pre-existing Doctor and Patient relationship. Dr. Jones, as a doctor, has presumed the responsibility for the foreseeable economic consequences of performing his services negligently, as he should evidently understand that the purpose of the operation is the surgical cutting and sealing of part of each vas deferens, typically as a means of sterilization, in harmony with the parent’s wishes. Dr. Jones breached the duty of care by not performing the surgery professionally. Therefore he owes a duty of care to Steven for the wrongful birth of
Jones and Peter – Omission Giving Rise to Wrongful Birth Thirdly, Peter can make a potential claim against Dr. Jones in regards to whether Dr. Jones owes Peter a duty of care for his negligence in performing the vasectomy operation? In the case of Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust, it was validated that regardless if the child is suffering from a sickness or not, as long as the doctor was the cause of the pregnancy, he will still be held liable for what he did. The medical practitioner might not cause the disability of the child; it was suffice to result from the wrongful pregnancy.
Dr. Jones performed an unsuccessful vasectomy operation on Peter, which resulted in the unwanted birth of a child (Steven). The proximity between Dr. Jones and Peter is obviously identified, as they have a special pre-existing Doctor and Patient relationship. Dr. Jones, as a doctor, has presumed the responsibility for the foreseeable economic consequences of performing his services negligently, as he should evidently understand that the purpose of the operation is the surgical cutting and sealing of part of each vas deferens, typically as a means of sterilization, in harmony with the parent’s wishes. Dr. Jones breached the duty of care by not performing the surgery professionally. Therefore he owes a duty of care to Steven for the wrongful birth of