Business Law Moot Court Report
Defenses available to the defendant in the case of a negligent suit are failure to prove the case by the plaintiff, a voluntary release or waiver of the claim, various types of immunities, the part played by the plaintiff’s act and procedural immunities.
The law of negligence requires that individuals act in a manner that is consistent with reasonable conduct as per the norms of the society. When individual’s actions violate the said norms, the law requires that the individual compensates whoever gets injured in the process. For a successful negligence suit, the plaintiff, Wesley Foo, must demonstrate each of the following elements; the defendant owed him a duty of care, breached that duty of care, a causal connection between the actions of the defendant and the harm to the plaintiff, whether the harm was foreseeable, and damage to the plaintiff from the actions of the defendant (Beever 2009). The associated laws are Occupier’s liability which deals with the responsibility owed to the visitors to a property by the owner and vicarious liability which holds someone responsible for the negligent acts of another person. As an example of vicarious responsibility, the hospital may be held liable for the misconduct of its employees. The parties that are involved in this case are the plaintiff, Wesley Foo, the defendants Wrestling and the Fight Union (WFU), and International Union Hospital (IUH) blood bank unit and Doctor Dr. BohPian of IUH.
Wrestling and Fight Union’s Defense
Mr. Foo had a role to play in the negligence. Under contributory negligence, Mr. Foo behaved in a manner that unreasonably got him close to danger. He wanted to take a selfie from right next to the net of the ring where the wrestlers were. Additionally, Mr. Foo assumed the risk that was imminent by virtue of his actions. The disclaimer by Wrestling and the Fight Union clearly depicts the event as dangerous. However, Mr. Foo disregarded this notice and went on to get dangerously close to the action.
Blood Bank Unit’s Defense
The blood bank unit can argue comparative negligence in its defense. Dawn Ngoh was asked to verify the packets that were handed to her before she left. However, due to the rush, she did not do so. As much as it is the duty of the staff to verify and ensure that the proper medication is given, the patient has a role to play as well, especially when asked to counter check something obvious such as blood group type in an emergency. As such, Dawn Ngoh contributed to Mr. Foo’s current state (Jones, n.d.).
Dr. BohPian has to prove that he acted in good faith. He may have to confirm that any other doctor would have done the same in his situation. That is, in the situation of an emergency with all of its potential chaos. Additionally, as long as the doctor can prove that what he did was in pursuit of a medical procedure that was upcoming, he can escape liability. However, he said the procedure must be supported by an established minority in the medical profession and be verifiable. Additionally, the medical profession has high stakes and can be unpredictable in the outcome. This is especially true in emergency scenarios. The doctor must use clinical judgment in making his decisions that someone’s life could depend on.
Beever, A., 2009. Rediscovering the Law of Negligence. s.l.:Hart Publishing.
Barlet and Jones, n.d. Defenses to Negligence or Malpractice. [Online]
Available at: http://samples.jbpub.com/9781284030204/Chapter_5.pdf
[Accessed 08 January 2017].