Elements of Civil Negligence

It is therefore important to note that for every ailment, the patient has a right to consult a medical officer who has a duty to play in ensuring that the patient’s health is restored. In most instances, there is always a way in which doctors are successful in their administration of treatment. However, there are situations in which the doctor prescribes wrong drugs and the patient suffers as a result. Under the law of Torts, the doctor has duty to provide the patient with the best possible care without cause for any repercussions (Shali, 2017). It is important to consider the fact that different people will approach different cases in different methods. In normal understanding of the phrase ‘duty of care,’ refers to a stand of care that the healthcare professional has in the engagement with the patient.

The duty of care that the professional has emanates from the fact that the doctor is properly trained in the administration of such care to their patients. Professional usually carry a higher duty of care because they are properly inducted in to the engagement of treating ailments. the standard duty of care was first established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) in which case an alcohol manufacturing company was sued for professional negligence. In the case, the plaintiff Donoghue had been consuming an alcoholic drink. A consideration of the matter implies that although Dr. Smith knew that James had an opiate addiction problem, he went on to administer Percocet drugs. Mr. Smith was livid of the fact that James was a user and administering such drug was risky.

In application of the neighbor’s principle by Lord Atkin, Mr. Smith considered the decision. It is indeed true that Mr. Smith knew of the opiate use by James. Knowing this, Dr. Smith went ahead and prescribed Percocet to James. The court, in determination of such a case will consider the various ways in which the negligence act or omission directly affected the event. For instance, courts would be reluctant to issue orders based on one vent that may have caused the harm to a patient. It is required that a series of events committed by the accused party can be directly linked to the harm that is suffered. Damages In the adjudication of such case law, the court will provide general and special damages to the victim (in cases where there is no death) for purposes of getting the individual back to the state in which they were.

General damages may be given to the family whereas special damages can be quantified and applied in different use such paying of hospital bills and damages for losses caused. The reasons cold not be blamed for her injuries. The principles that the judge set for causation are that; • The injury would have happened even if the doctor was not present • If the injury would have occurred, would the ‘but for’ test still apply in court? • The satisfaction of the court should be on whether the acts of negligence caused the damages and injury in totality. Conclusion In the case of James and Dr. Smith, it might be difficult to prove whether the prescription of the Percocet drugs must be proven as the cause of the death.