Summary Of Deb's Case
The main question here in this case is who is liable, negligent and damages. Deb is driving her car when it is involved in an accident with a car driven by Abe. A few moments after the first crash, a car driven by Ann hits the two cars disabled from the first crash. Cal, a passenger in Abe’s car has a minor injury to his head from the first crash but serious injury to his knees and legs from Ann’s subsequent driving into the first crash. Cal is taken to the hospital where Doctor informs him, correctly, that he will lose both legs unless he consents to an immediate particular type of surgery which may save his legs. Doctor does not inform Cal that this type of surgery, if successful, will mean that his repaired knees will need artificial
replacements within the next fifteen years. Cal, not knowing about the risk of knee replacement, agrees to the surgery, which Doctor performs but is not successful in saving his legs. Cal can never walk again. Also, Doctor accidentally leaves a metal clamp inside Cal’s leg after sewing the leg up.
We must look at negligence and whether Deb, Abe, Anne and Cal have any causes of action a set of facts that are sufficient to justify the right to sue and whether they can recover losses for this reason. To decide whether Deb, Abe, Anne and Cal have the right to sue for negligent actions causing personal injury, the three elements of negligence must be proven. One did Deb, Abe and Anne owed a duty of care to each other as well as to Cal while driving; two that Deb, Abe and Anne breached this duty of care and three the resulting damages were caused by their failure to exercise the proper standard of care.
(1) Do Deb, Abe and Anne owe a duty of care to each other and to Cal? In order to prove the existence of duty of care, two tests must be satisfied; the reasonable foreseeability test and the proximity test.
(a) The reasonable foreseeability test as set in Donaghue v Stevenson by Lord Atkin states that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure.....persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected...” So the question is, would a reasonable person in Deb, Abe and Anne’s position have predicted that their conduct could cause harm to Cal.
replacements within the next fifteen years. Cal, not knowing about the risk of knee replacement, agrees to the surgery, which Doctor performs but is not successful in saving his legs. Cal can never walk again. Also, Doctor accidentally leaves a metal clamp inside Cal’s leg after sewing the leg up.
We must look at negligence and whether Deb, Abe, Anne and Cal have any causes of action a set of facts that are sufficient to justify the right to sue and whether they can recover losses for this reason. To decide whether Deb, Abe, Anne and Cal have the right to sue for negligent actions causing personal injury, the three elements of negligence must be proven. One did Deb, Abe and Anne owed a duty of care to each other as well as to Cal while driving; two that Deb, Abe and Anne breached this duty of care and three the resulting damages were caused by their failure to exercise the proper standard of care.
(1) Do Deb, Abe and Anne owe a duty of care to each other and to Cal? In order to prove the existence of duty of care, two tests must be satisfied; the reasonable foreseeability test and the proximity test.
(a) The reasonable foreseeability test as set in Donaghue v Stevenson by Lord Atkin states that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure.....persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected...” So the question is, would a reasonable person in Deb, Abe and Anne’s position have predicted that their conduct could cause harm to Cal.