Phase Test A case Study Analysis (Coursework Sample)

Phase Test
Course: Management
Professor:
University:
City/State:
Date:
Topic: Phase Test
A case Study Analysis
Under tort of negligence, Cheryl’s doctor is liable for professional negligence under the UK tort law (Stanton, 2006). Cheryl can file claim for consequential damages resulting from her Doctors acts of negligence by failing to prescribe the recommended Malaria tablets, which consequently led her to contract the disease on her return to the UK several weeks later. Cheryl can argue that her primary reason to consult the doctor was to safe guard her health during and after her visit to India. Thus she could argue that had the Doctor acted professionally by prescribing the correct Malaria injections and tablets, then she obviously could not have suffered the consequences of her illness and hospitalization. Hence under the tort of negligence, Cheryl could prove the link between the Doctor’s failure to take reasonable professional care and the damages she has had to suffer as a result. A study of the case reveals the existence of causation between the two, the Doctor’s negligence and the losses incurred by Cheryl as a result of her hospitalization. Thus Cheryl as the claimant can prove beyond reasonable doubt under the tort of negligence that the damage was solely as a result of the Doctor’s consequential negligence.
Due to unforeseeable health risks in the future, Cheryl sought the Doctor’s professional services that would consequently guarantee her good health during and after the trip to India. This would have enabled her to publicize the impending release of her latest single and avert the damages incurred due to her failure to publicize the Album. Thus as a consequence of the doctor’s professional negligence, she is hospitalized on her return to the UK and forfeits her participation in the publicity shows that were meant to optimize her sales and revenue. Thus Cheryl can file for litigation seeking compensation for consequential damages resulting from the Doctor’s act of professional negligence. Being the claimant in this case, she can prove to the prosecution that she would not have incurred damages, “but for” the Doctor’s act or omission. Unlike in the case of BARNETT V CHELSEA & KENSINGTON HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [1968] 1 All ER 1068, Cheryl’s Doctor should be held accountable for his failure to act professionally by prescribing correct medication for the claimant. This is because the probability of the claimant contracting Malaria as a result of her trip to India, without pre-medication was foreseeable and preventable.
Given that the type of damage was reasonable foreseeable as required under tort of negligence, the defendant will be held accountable. Hence any argument by the defendant that the cause or severities of the damages were unforeseeable would be irrelevant and inadmissible (Balkin & Davis, 1996). On the other hand, the Defendant could argue based on novus actus interveniens because Cheryl broke the chain of causation by not taking the other correctly prescribed drugs (Williams, 1951). However, the claimant could annul this claim by stating that the consequential damages could still not be avoided by her taking the correctly prescribed drugs. Hence the chain of causation could only be broken if she would have failed to take the recommended malaria tablets which the Doctor did not prescribe. Thus given that the act was reasonably foreseeable, and that the defendant was under obligation to prevent it, the liability lies squarely with the defendant given that the damage was not too remote (Stanton, 2006). The defendant can rely on the court decision in the case of REEVES V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE for the METROPOLICE [1999] 3 WLR 363. In this case, the court decided that the act of police intervening was both reasonably foreseeable and the very thing they were meant to prevent. Similarly in this case, the act of the Doctor acting professionally by recommending the correct malaria medication was both reasonably foreseeable and the very thing that the Doctor was obligated to do.
The defendant can rely on contributory negligence of the Law reform act of 1945 by arguing that the claimant too acted in negligence by failing to take the correctly prescribed drugs (Balkin & Davis, 1996).. To support this, he can prove that had the claimant taken these drugs as prescribed; then they would have prevented or significantly reduced the claimant’s chances of contracting Malaria. Thus since the claimant partly contributed to the overall negligence, then it would be prudent that the blame be apportioned between the claimant and the defendant (Clark& Lindsell, 1929). Consequently, the defendant should argue that the damages due be reduced to the exten...