Author: admin

ISSUE:

Can the respondent be liable for negligence?

RULE:

A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.

ISSUE:

How to assess the standard of care imposed on a professional when some professionals favor the treatment while others do not?

RULE:

If a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent

ISSUE:

Could the defendant foresee the harm that was caused to the plaintiff?

RULE:

The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done, but the precautions seemed insufficient against the effects of extreme coldness and no reasonable man could have foreseen such an incident.

ISSUE:

Could the lorry driver foresee the danger that could be caused to the boy?

Could he stop the lorry on time?

RULE:

One must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure one's neighbor.

ISSUE:

Could a reasonable person have foreseen the plaintiff's injury?

If a risk is reasonably foreseeable, does one have a duty to prevent it?

RULE:

It is not enough that the event should be such as can reasonably be foreseen; the further result that injury is likely to follow must also be such as a reasonable man would contemplate, before he can be convicted of actionable negligence.

The remote possibility of an injury occurring is not enough; there must be sufficient probability to lead a reasonable man to anticipate it.

ISSUE:

Whether the injury to the plaintiff was caused due to the acts of the defendant or from a new force which broke the chain of causation caused the injury?

RULE:

Anyone who does an unlawful act is considered as the doer of all that follows

...

ISSUE:

Can the Appellants be held partly liable for damage to the barge and for the lost cargo by not having an attendant aboard the barge when it broke free from the pier.

RULE:

There is no general rule to determine when the absence of an attendant will make the owner of the barge liable for injuries to other vessels if the barge breaks away from her moorings

If (Burden < Cost of Injury × Probability of occurrence), then the accused will not have met the standard of care required.

ISSUE:

The two issues in this case are:
1. Can the defendant be held negligent in failing to promptly stop his car?
2. Can the plaintiff be held to the same standard of care commonly exercised by the ordinary boy of his age?

RULE:

A boy of seven is not held to the same standard of care in self protection as a mature man. When considering his contributory negligence the standard is the degree of care commonly exercised by the ordinary boy of his age and maturity.

ISSUE:

Can the defendant be held liable for an act done unintentionally?

RULE:

An individual, who in the course of doing a lawful act uses ordinary care, is not liable for injuries resulting from the lawful act.