Analysis: Claims in Negligence - Case Study Example

Case Analysis: Claims in Negligence [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Introduction This article examines the law underlying successful claim in negligence. Essentially, for a successful claim of negligence, four elements have to be satisfied, which the plaintiff must prove based on balance of probabilities. The first involves proof that the defendant owed the duty of care to the plaintiff with regard to the extent of damage or detriment that the applicant suffers. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached the standards of duty of care1. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the breach of duty of care by the defendant caused the alleged loss or damage. Four, the plaintiff must prove that the damage he suffered is not remote to the defendant’s breach of duty2. In the present scenario, the team doctor and the coach owed James duty of care. Chances that James can successfully apply for claim in negligence are examined. Further, likelihood of the coach and the team doctor successfully applying for volenti non fit injuria as defense are examined. Central Legal Issue Based on the facts presented, the key legal issues are whether the coach and the team doctor owed a duty of care to James, who is the claimant; whether James suffered some form or detriment or loss; whether the two (the team doctor and the coach) failed to fulfil the standard of care; whether the loss that James suffered is not remote to the breaches of duty of care by the two; whether the two are responsible, wholly or partially, for the losses that James suffered. Duty of Care James must be able to satisfy the court that indeed a duty of care existed. He must afterwards prove to the court on balance of probabilities that the team doctor and the coach breached the standard of duty of care3. In the case, the court will take into consideration the fact that the coach and the team doctor have professional skills and that the case involves exercising that skill. Therefore, the court would expect James to show that a degree of competency was expected of both the coach and the team doctor, and that the case calls to attention an exercise of the skills4. Therefore, it will be on the onus of James to show the degree of proficiency expected of any ordinary skilled person in the capacity of the coach or the team doctor who can perform the same duties with proficiency. Such facts were held in the case Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank plc5. If James proves that the coach and the team doctor fell short of satisfying the ordinary level of proficiency any reasonable person in their position can satisfy, they the two can be held negligent6. Therefore, the team doctor and the coach would be expected to show a reasonable care. In the case, it can be established that James demonstrated a level of confidence in the tea, doctor and the coach in their professions. This is explained by the fact that the team doctor and the coach were in charge of a representative team. Under normal circumstances, experienced professionals would be expected to handle such a team7. Further, James demonstrated a level of confidence in the coach after his selection to the team. For instance, James knows that in order to “achieve” his goals, he “must listen to the coach.” Under normal circumstances, the team doctor and the coach would be expected to owe the players a duty of care. Based on the facts of the case, the team doctor and the coach neglected their duty of care by permitting administration of the supplements that contained prohibited substances8. It can therefore be concluded that the coach and the team doctor owed James a duty of care, and that they breached the standard of care expected of them. The two had failed to exercise reasonable care through their duties as the coach and the team doctors9. Cause in Fact James must be able to demonstrate that the team doctor and the coach’s actions directly caused his loss. Under the common law, this is often depicted as “but-for.” In which case, “but for’ the defendants’ actions, the claimant’s detriment would not have resulted10. In the case, an element of causation can be established. For instance, it is the team doctor “who issues the supplements” that contain the prohibited substances, even though James does not question when he is given the supplements. James knows that the team doctor and the coach owe him duty of care, and therefore does not question when he is given the supplements11. It can be concluded that were it not for the team doctor’s malpractice in issuing the supplements, James would not have suffered the loss12. This approach was demonstrated in the case McGhee v National Coal Board, where the court held that if the defendant’s negligent actions contributed to the alleged loss, they could be held liable, and therefore it would not be necessary to prove that the negligence was the only cause of the loss13. In conclusion, it can be established that the team doctor and the coach’s actions directly caused his loss. Proximate Cause Proximate cause refers to the extent of defendant’s responsibility in the negligence case. In a negligence case, the negligence case will only be held legally responsible for the losses that the defendant could have foreseen through his action. However, if the defendant causes damages that are outside the scope of risks14 the defendant can reasonably be said to have foreseen15. In the case scenario, James loss would prove proximate cause by demonstrating that the team doctor could have foreseen the loss – which resulted in James’s testing positive to the prohibitive substance hence destroying his career. Conversely, the loss is not remote to the defendant’s action. Such facts were established in the case Sion v Hampstead HA, where the court held that a doctor is in principle held liable for a patient or a patient’s relative provided that it can be proved that the doctor could have foreseen the damage16. In conclusion, proximate cause can be established in the case. Damage/Loss/Detriment James has to prove that he suffered some form of loss. Legally, many losses that result from negligence can be considered as economic loss, provided that the claimant suffers some form of detriment17. Such an approach was used in the case Spartan Steele v Martin18. In the case scenario, it is clear that James has suffered loss that resulted from negligence of the team doctor and the coach. Several losses that James suffers can be determined. These include psychological, physical and economic losses. James suffers economic loss because, having tested positive to prohibited substance, his career would likely come to an end. Therefore, it would affect the source of his livelihood19. James suffered physical loss, as the prohibited substances have been tested in his system, which could have some form of unintended side-effects to his health. James suffers psychological loss, since as a rising ice hockey star. James has always been emotionally motivated to play in the representative team and to do everything to achieve his goal. It is clear that he was never aware he was using the ‘prohibited substances.” Additionally, by testing positive, it clearly affects his emotions. In conclusion, the team doctor and the coach caused loss to James. The two would be held liable for psychological, economic or physical loss. Defences The key legal issue regarding chances of the team doctor and the coach’s defences is establishing the chances of successfully applying for volenti non fit injuria. The principles of volenti non fit injuria set out that the plaintiff played a contributory role in the loss of injury by involuntarily agreeing to take the risk of loss at own detriment20. Such was demonstrated in the case Titchener v Briticsh Railways Board21. It is the onus of the coach and the team doctor to prove that James willingly accepted to take the risks by placing himself in a potentially harmful position. In the case, the defences of the team doctor and the coach rely on the argument that James “voluntarily agreed to taking the (prohibited) substance.” In establishing whether the team doctor and the coach will be successful, it should be established whether James was aware of the risk and whether his consent was voluntary22. Such principles were determined in the case Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council23. In the case, it came to James as a great surprise that he had tested “positive to a prohibited substance.” This shows that James was not aware his was using the “prohibited substance.” Despite the fact that James had signed a contract that stated that he agreed to special data that included vitamins and supplements, there is no mention of having agreed to “voluntarily” take the “prohibited substance” that resulted to the loss. Based on the facts of the case, it can be concluded that the team doctor and the coach have very limited chances of successfully applying for volenti non fit injuria as a defence. Conclusion In conclusion, James can successfully apply for a claim of negligence as he can be able to prove the existence of breach of duty of care, causation, proximity and loss. Additionally, the team doctor and the coach’s chances of successfully applying for volenti non fit injuria as a defence is slim. This is since James was not aware he was using the prohibited substances. Further, he had not voluntarily agreed to use the prohibited substance. Bibliography Books, Articles & Journals Australian Sports Commission, Club/Association Management Program: Legal Issues and Risk Management, (2000) Bryden, Daniele, 'Duty of care and medical negligence,' (2011) 11(4) Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain, 124-127 Field, Andrew, 'There Must Be A Better Way’: Personal Injuries Compensation Since The ‘Crisis In Insurance,' (2008) 13(1) Deakin Law Review, 68 Eddy, Lisa, Consent as a Defence to Bodily Harm: Indigenous Customary Law Punishment is Not Necessarily Against ‘The Law’. (29 Sept 2013) Fast, Katherine, Sport Liability Law A Guide For Amateur Sports Organizations And Their Insurers, (2004) FindLaw, Elements of a Negligence Case, (29 Sept 2013) Jaffey, JE, "Volenti Non Fit Injuria," (1985)44(1) Cambridge Law Journal, 87 Caron Hayes and Rocco Pirozzolo,' Access to Justice in lower value clinical negligence claims, (2009) 15(6), AvMa Medcal & Legal Journal, 253,255 Natasha Schot, 'Negligent liability in sport,' (2005) Sports Law eJournal, 2,4 Newnham, Helen, 'When is a teacher or school liable in negligence?' (2000) (25(1) Australian Journal of Teacher Education, pp.1,2 O. John, Spengler and Daniel P. Connaughton, 'A Quantitative Approach to Assessing Legal Outcomes in Reported Sport and Recreation Negligence Cases Involving Assumption of Risk,' (2003) 2(3) Entertainment Law, 113 Osborne, Barbara, 'Principles of Liability for Athletic Trainers: Managing Sport-Related Concussion,' (2001) 36(3), J Athl Train., 316-321 Teh, Mui-Kim, 'Educational Malpractice: Legal Cases and Educators’ Views,' (2009) 36(1), Educational Journal, 141 Wallace, E, J Lowry2, S M Smith1, T Fahey, 'The epidemiology of malpractice claims in primary care: a systematic review,' 2013 3(1) BMJ Open, Westbury, Ian, Educational Malpractice and the Professionalization Project around Teaching: A Commentary on the "Jurisdiction" of Teachers, (29 Sept 2013) Wilson, Marie-France, Young Athletes At Risk: Preventing and Managing Consequences of Sports Concussions in Young Athletes and the Related Legal Issues,' (2010) 21(1), Marquette Sports Law Review, 259 Case Laws Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc [2006] UKHL 28 McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] 3 All E.R. 1008, 1 W.L.R. 1 Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134 Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26 Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin [1972] 3 WLR 502 Titchener v British Railway Board [1983] 1 WLR 1427 Read More