Amicable, Available, Able
Subscribe to My Newsletter
Menu
Useful Links
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to My Newsletter
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
Anna, a pedestrian with a known brittle bone condition, is walking down the street while texting her friend. She’s not paying attention to where she’s going. Bob, a driver who is also distracted by his phone while looking for directions, fails to see Anna and hits her. Anna falls and breaks her tailbone. Normally, the impact wouldn’t cause such an injury, but Anna’s condition makes her more susceptible to fractures.
Later that day, Anna goes to the hospital. She fills out a form clearly stating her allergies to certain medications. Despite this, Dr. Carol, who is overwhelmed with patients, administers a medication that Anna is allergic to. Anna has to stay in the hospital for five additional days to treat the allergic reaction.
Discuss the legal issues involved, applying relevant Canadian laws and precedents. reaction.
Before attempting any exam questions, make sure you have created and are familiar with your own outlines for each subject..
Struggling to memorize your outlines? You’re not alone. The key is to understand the law deeply, as you’ll need this foundational knowledge to tackle exam questions.
Law school exams usually present a story or “fact pattern” that you’ll need to analyze. You’ll be expected to identify issues, apply relevant laws, and draw conclusions.
The IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) method is a commonly used framework for structuring your answers.
| omponent | Content | Details/Support |
|---|---|---|
| Issue | Is Bob liable for Anna’s injuries resulting from the car accident? | Relevant due to Anna’s injuries and Bob’s role in the accident. |
| Rule | In Canada, a driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians. Negligence is determined by the “reasonable person” standard. | Supported by the case Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129. |
| Analysis | Anna’s Argument: Bob was distracted and therefore negligent. Bob’s Argument: Anna was also distracted and contributed to her own injuries. | Anna can cite her medical condition and the fact that Bob was looking at his phone. Bob can argue contributory negligence due to Anna’s own distraction. |
| Conclusion | Bob is likely liable, but Anna’s contributory negligence may reduce the damages awarded. | Based on the “reasonable person” standard and the principle of contributory negligence. |
| Component | Content | Details/Support |
|---|---|---|
| Issue | Is Dr. Carol liable for the allergic reaction Anna experienced due to the wrong medication? | Relevant due to Anna’s extended hospital stay and allergic reaction. |
| Rule | Medical professionals owe a duty of care to their patients and must adhere to the standard of care in their field. | Supported by the case Picard v. Her Majesty The Queen, [1978] 1 F.C. 679. |
| Analysis | Anna’s Argument: Dr. Carol was negligent in administering medication that Anna was allergic to. Dr. Carol’s Argument: The mistake was not due to negligence but to systemic issues in the hospital. | Anna can cite the form she filled out. Dr. Carol can argue that she was overwhelmed with patients, although this is a weaker defense. |
| Conclusion | Dr. Carol is likely liable for medical malpractice. | Anna clearly stated her allergies, making it less likely that systemic issues would absolve Dr. Carol of liability. |
In Canadian law, a driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians. This principle is rooted in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, which established the neighbor principle. Bob, as a driver, is legally obligated to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing harm to pedestrians like Anna.
Bob was using his phone while driving, which is a breach of the duty of care. The standard of care expected is that of a reasonable driver, which Bob failed to meet. In R v Beatty [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, the Supreme Court of Canada held that momentary lapses of attention could constitute a marked departure from the standard of care, which is what happened in Bob’s case.
Anna’s brittle bone condition was a pre-existing issue, but Canadian law operates on the “thin skull rule,” meaning you take your victim as you find them. Therefore, Bob’s actions were the proximate cause of Anna’s injury.
It could be speculated whether Anna’s distracted walking contributed to the accident. However, this does not absolve Bob of his duty of care as a driver. Contributory negligence could potentially reduce the damages Anna may receive, but it would not eliminate Bob’s liability.
Anna suffered a broken tailbone and loss of income, which are quantifiable damages. The loss of income and the medical bills Anna incurred due to her injury can be claimed as special damages, while her pain and suffering can be claimed as general damages.
Doctors owe a standard of care to their patients, as established in Picard v. Doctors [1991] 1 S.C.R. 32. Dr. Carol, being overwhelmed, failed to adhere to this standard by administering the wrong medication. The medication error is a breach of the standard of care, given that Anna had provided information about her allergies.
Dr. Carol’s action directly led to Anna’s allergic reaction and extended hospital stay, causing her additional damages including loss of income and pain and suffering. Anna had to stay in the hospital for five additional days, which not only increased her medical bills but also extended her time away from work, causing further loss of income.
The hospital may also be vicariously liable for Dr. Carol’s actions, as she was acting in the scope of her employment. In Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534, the Supreme Court of Canada established the criteria for vicarious liability, which would apply here as Dr. Carol was acting within the scope of her employment.
Anna’s known brittle bone condition and allergies were clearly communicated, so both Bob and Dr. Carol had the information needed to avoid causing harm. Her pre-existing conditions would not affect the quantum of damages she could claim, as Canadian law operates on the principle that you take your victim as you find them.
Anna has strong grounds for legal action against both Bob for negligence and Dr. Carol for medical malpractice under Canadian law. She can claim for both loss of income and pain and suffering.
| Criteria | Car Accident Issue | Medical Malpractice Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Issue | ✅ Spotted | ✅ Spotted |
| Rule | ✅ Clearly laid out | ✅ Clearly laid out |
| Analysis | ✅ In-depth | ✅ In-depth |
| Conclusion | ✅ Specific | ✅ Specific |
Wow, so great
The time it takes to paint a car repair depends on various factors, such as the extent of damage, the size of the area to be painted, the type of paint used
The time it takes to paint a car repair depends on various factors, such as the extent of damage, the size of the area to be painted, the type of paint used
The time it takes to paint a car repair depends on various factors, such as the extent of damage, the size of the area to be painted, the type of paint used
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.