Claims in Negligence - 19-Years-Old James - Case Study Example

Case Analysis: Claims in Negligence [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Claims of negligence abstract. This paper covers the law underlying successful claims in negligence. The claim of negligence involves James who is 19 years old. James is a rising hockey star who has been selected to play in a representative team and this makes him so happy. The claim of negligence comes when James is tested positive to a prohibited substance yet he has been operating in a clean body without involving himself in any sort of drug intake. The only possibility of James having taken the prohibited substance is through his daily intake of the vitamins and the supplements which he was being given by the team doctor after him signing the contract of taking them. This claim of negligence will cover the four elements of claim of negligence which are the existence of duty, the breach of the duty, the cause and finally the proof that damage was actually caused. James will be successful to prove this case if he will manage to show that the doctor and coach had the duty of providing him standard care which they failed when he tested positive to the prohibited substance. This will show negligence of the doctor and coach, they will be deemed negligent. On the other side the doctor and the coach may apply volenti non fit injuria as defence. The way James could prove the claim of negligence and the doctor and coach apply volenti non fit as defence has been highlighted. The argument in negligence The key legal issue in this case is based on the arguments of the elements of claims of negligence. The key legal issues is to prove whether the coach and the team doctor owed James a duty to provide certain standards of care, whether James suffered some form of injury, whether the coach and the team doctor failed to carry out their duty to certain standards of care, whether the loss or injury suffered by James was due to the breach of duty of care by the coach and the team doctor. Finally whether the doctor and the coach really caused injury to James is to be determined. For the success of James the claimant, he must be able to prove and satisfy the court that there was an existence of duty of care. He must show that the doctor and the coach had the duty of providing him high standard care. The doctor and coach breached their duty by being negligent which caused James to be tested positive to the prohibited substance. The doctor and the coach were not careful about the ingredients of the vitamins and supplements they used to give James. Considering the accusations brought forward by James, the court will argue that the Coach and the team doctors had skills which they had to put in practise appropriately. James was to show the court that there was some degree of competency which was expected from the coach and the team doctor. This competency brings about the issue of use of skills in performing duties1. James has to show the level of professionalism expected from the coach and the team doctor. The professional level which can be performed by any other person placed in the capacity of the coach and the team doctor. An example of the case which had the same argument was the case of Attia v British Gas Plc2 which showed where there was under utilization of the professional skills and competency. In this case, if James proves the incompetence of the coach and the doctor in their professions, the two can be held negligent3. Due to the negligence of the two, James ended up losing his career which he was determined to take it high. According to their profession, the coach and the doctor are expected to show a high level of professionalism in their duties carried out. They had to provide the best care to the team they were in charge of and making sure they receive the high standard of care they deserved with no compromise in the quality. Considering this the case, James showed high level of confidence in his coach and the team doctor by ensuring he took the vitamins and the supplements he was entitled to. His high level of confidence could be as a result of him knowing the benefits of being obedient and confident in his coach. He understood that any success in his sports would highly depend on the confidence he has in his coach and the doctor because the two were professional and posses the best skills. On the other side the coach and the doctor failed to carry out their obligations of providing standard care to James. The doctor gave James ingredients which were prohibited in the sport laws during his duty of giving James the right supplement required4 which is a total negligence in sports. It is certain that the coach and the team doctor owed James a duty of care and they both breached the duty by not offering him the standard care that he required. The two failed to perform their duty as the coach and the team doctor5 since they end up with poor management of the team that caused injury to James. In the case, James must prove that the negligence of the coach and the team doctor has caused him the loss. James had the confident in the coach and the team doctor that he didn’t have to ask the ingredients of the supplements he was given because he knew they owed him the duty of care. It was the doctor negligence to carry out his obligation that he ended up giving James the prohibited substances in the supplement. Due to the doctor’s negligence, James ended up suffering the loss. The approach of this case was used in the case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority6 where the court ruled that the cause of loss of the alleged was caused by the defendant’s negligence and the alleged suffered some injury. In a similar way, it is concluded that the doctors and the coach negligence caused the James’ loss. The immediate cause was highlighted in this claim of negligence case that James has to put forward. In the claim of negligence case, the negligence case will only be held lawfully accountable for the losses that the defendant could have foreseen through his action. In this case, James could prove proximate by showing that the loss of his career was caused by the doctor administering him the prohibited substance. The injury of the case In this case James has to prove that he suffered some loss due to negligence. The loss that normally arises due to negligence is taken as economic loss. James has to show that some sort of injury occurred. The same approach of the case was used in the case of Salsbury -v- Woodland7where the alleged suffered a loss which was caused by the negligence of the defendant. Application of volenti non fit injuria In the legal issues, the success of the doctor and the coach not proving guilty can be explained by the use of volenti non fit injuria for defence. The principle of volenti non fit injuria is that one knowingly and voluntary consents to and takes on a risk cannot claim for compensation on the injury that results. This was demonstrated in the case of White v Blackmore8where the defendant used the volenti non injuria has defence. The doctor and the coach have the chance to prove that James voluntarily agreed to take the prohibited substance. In establishing whether the doctor and the coach would be successful, it will depend on whether James was aware of the risks of the prohibited substance and whether his consents were voluntarily. According to this case, James had made a contract of taking the special diet of vitamins and supplements. James had no idea of taking prohibited substance and it was not mentioned anywhere. It even came to a surprise when he tested positive. By considering all the facts in this case, the doctor and coach have very minimal chances of applying volenti non fit injuria as defence. This is because James didn’t make any contract of taking the prohibited substance and it was the duty of the doctor and the coach to ensure James got the best quality care he required in order to prosper in his career. In concluding this case, James can successfully claim for negligence because of all the facts that he has against the doctor and the coach. On the other hand, the doctor and coach have a very small chance for applying volenti non fit injuria as defence since it has not been mentioned any where that James had made a contract of taking the prohibited substance and that he was taking it voluntarily. Bibliography Books, Articles & Journals Barbara Osborne. 'Principles of Liability for Athletic Trainers: Managing Sport-Related Concussion,' (2001) 36(3) J Athl Train., 316-321 Carl Circo, Teaching Transactional Skills in Partnership with the Bar, 9 Berkeley Business Law Journal 187 (2012). Donoghue (or McAlister) v Stevenson, [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords Martin J. Greenberg and Djenane Paul. Coaches' Contracts: Terminating A Coach Without Cause and the Obligation to Mitigate Damages, 23 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 339 (2013) James M and Deeney, F. 'The standard of care in sports negligence cases' 1 Entertainment Law Review 104. Newnham, H. When is a teacher or school liable in negligence? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 25(1), (2000). Case Laws Attia v British Gas Plc [1988] QB 304 Salsbury -v- Woodland [1970] 1 KB 191 White v Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR 296 Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 Read More