Willow

.docx

School

St. John's University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

89778

Subject

Law

Date

Jun 1, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by MajorBoulder3427

Willow's Potential Liability and Defenses Issues: Willow's liability for Isla's injuries at her clinic. Willow's liability for Isla's allergic reaction to the anesthetic. Willow's liability for the car accident involving Django. Legal Principles: - Medical Negligence: Failure to warn about the potential risks of a medical treatment. - Occupier’s Liability: Responsibility to ensure the safety of the premises. - Negligent Driving: Duty to exercise reasonable care while operating a vehicle. Analysis: Medical Negligence: - Duty of Care: Willow, as a medical professional, owes a duty of care to her patients, including Isla. - Breach of Duty: Willow failed to inform Isla about the 1 in 1 million chance of a severe allergic reaction to the anesthetic. - Causation: Isla suffered a severe allergic reaction leading to deafness. - Case Reference: In Rogers v Whitaker (1992), it was established that medical practitioners must inform patients of any material risks involved in a proposed treatment. Conclusion: Willow likely breached her duty of care by not warning Isla of the potential risk, resulting in medical negligence. Occupier’s Liability: - Duty of Care: As the occupier of the clinic, Willow must ensure the premises are safe for visitors. - Breach of Duty: Isla tripped on the worn carpet, which Willow failed to repair. - Causation: Isla sustained additional injuries due to the fall caused by the worn carpet.
- Case Reference: In Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987), it was established that occupiers owe a duty of care to ensure that entrants do not suffer injury on their premises. Conclusion: Willow likely breached her occupier’s duty of care by not maintaining the clinic in a safe condition, leading to Isla’s injuries. Negligent Driving: - Duty of Care: Willow owed a duty of care to Django as a passenger to drive safely. - Breach of Duty: Willow drove after consuming alcohol, impairing her ability to drive safely. - Causation: The impaired driving led to an accident causing serious injuries to both Willow and Django. - Case Reference: In Council of the City of Greater Taree v Wells (2010), the concept of obvious risk and assumption of risk were discussed, although this case focuses more on the driver’s negligence. Conclusion: Willow likely breached her duty of care by driving under the influence of alcohol, resulting in negligent driving. Defenses: Medical Negligence Defense: - Contributory Negligence: Willow might argue that Isla should have informed her about any known allergies, although this is weak if Isla was unaware of the risk. Occupier’s Liability Defense: - Obvious Risk: Willow might argue that the worn carpet was an obvious risk that Isla should have noticed, though this is unlikely to be a strong defense. Negligent Driving Defense:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help