|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Application of Doctrine to a Hypothetical Problem The parents of Peter Potter are seeking to bring negligence proceedings against both Daniel Davis and Dr. Delores Dante, on behalf of Peter who lost his leg arguably due to the negligence of one or both these parties. The responsibility for the loss of Peter’s leg seems to rest equally on the shoulders of the two defendants, but further exploration will determine which case is more likely to succeed. It is almost inarguable that Davis owes a duty of care to Peter, he is both Peter’s uncle and carer for the day. However, whether or not Dante owes a duty to Peter is much less certain. Dante would likely use Brennan J’s judgement in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (19885) 157 CLR 424 to support her case, as Brennan states “a man on the beach is not legally bound to plunge into the sea when he can foresee that a swimmer might drown ”. This barely strengthens to arguments against her owing a duty, reinforced in a case that Peter’s parents are quite likely to refer to. In Lowns v Woods (1996) ATR 81 the majority dismiss the appeal of a doctor who argues that the lack of a prior professional relationship effectively dismisses a doctor’s duty to a needy patient.
Approximate Word count = 829
Approximate Pages = 3.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|