Claims in Negligence - Case Study Example

Business Law: Claims in Negligence [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Case Synopsis James who is a nineteen-year old rising hockey star has tested positive to prohibited substance. This could see an end of his career. However, he needs to establish a claim in negligence against his team doctor and coach. This essay discusses the elements James will have to comply with in order to successfully apply for the claim. The likelihood of the coach and the team doctor successfully applying volenti non fit injuria as a defense are also examined. Key Concepts: Claims in negligence, negligence, damage, breach of duty, duty of care, causation, volenti Claim in negligence James needs advice on what he would have to do to establish a claim in negligence. Australian Law treats negligence as part of tort law that is concerned with grievances between one party that suffers loss, injury or damage that result from the other party’s carelessness, negligence or actions1. In the case scenario, James is a rising ice hockey star who wants to do everything to increase his chances of playing in a representative team. His contract states that he agrees to special diets, which in this case include vitamins and supplements. James doesn’t question whenever the team doctor gives the supplements to him. He assumes that all is well as he operates a “clean body’ policy and hence has never taken any such prohibited substance. It is therefore a surprise when he tests positive. For James to successfully apply for the claim in negligence, he must satisfy the necessary prerequisites for a claim in negligence. These include the duty of care, breach of duty of care, damage and lastly causation2. For an action in negligence to be brought successfully against the coach and the team doctor, it must be established that a duty of care existed, and that the two (or either of the two) breached it either by omission or action3. In addition, it must be established that James suffered some form of damage, loss or injury. The damage must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence. For the action of negligence to be successful, James must establish all elements of negligence according to civil standards of proof that is on the balance of probabilities. This means that James as the plaintiff will have to satisfy the court that his version of the event is more probable. First, James must prove that he was owed a duty of care by the coach and team doctor. It would be extremely difficult for both the defendants to argue successfully argue that they did not owe James a duty of care4. Australian Law regards duty of care as the first element of negligence. Essentially, it is concerned with the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Such a scenario was demonstrated in the landmark ruling in the case Donoghue v.Stevenson5. In the ruling, the court had to establish to whom a duty of care is owed. In other words, the law demands that an individual has to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission that are likely to injure another individual in situations where it is foreseeable that the injury is likely to occur given the circumstances. In James’ scenario, a duty of care arises out of his relationship with the coach and the team doctor and is well established at common law and in regulations. It is generally held that a coach and the team doctor owes to the players while under their supervision and control a duty to take reasonable care for their safety. In actual fact, it is not their duty to protect players against injury or damage; rather it is their duty to take reasonable care to avoid any harm that the players can suffer. Such a scenario was held in the case Richards v. State of Victoria6. Foreseeability plays a crucial role in determining duty of care. If the consequence of omission or action is likely, then the coach and the team doctor are held liable. In situations of high risks, the coach has a higher duty imposed to supervise the activities of the team doctor and the players as well as offer instructions. As was pointed out in the court case Warren v. Haines, a risk is foreseeable when it is not fanciful. Under this circumstance, the court will establish what the coach or the team doctor could have done to reduce the risk of James’ injury7. Once duty of care is established, breach of duty will then be determined. Here, it will have to be established whether standard of care was met by the coach and the team doctor and whether their conduct fell below the expected standard of care. In any case, the coach and the team doctor are responsible for his health and fitness. Secondly, both the team doctor and the coach breached the duty of care. This is because the team doctors failed to meet the required standard of care in his duty as the team doctor. Administering prohibited substance to James was indeed an indication that he failed to meet the standard of care required of a doctor. Finally, it is clear that James’ loss was caused by the breach of duty8. It is also critical to examine the element of causation and whether it can be established in James’ scenario. Here, both the team doctor and the coach will have to indicate sufficiently that their breach of duty is closely connected to the injury that James suffers. In the case Chappel v Hart, the court held that once it has been established that breach in duty of care exists, then it is relatively easy to determine that the breach had caused the injury suffered by the plaintiff9. In James’ scenario, causation can be sufficiently determined since, were it not for the team doctor to administer the prohibited substance, he would still be standing a chance of playing in the representative team. Towards this end, it can sufficiently be established that James can successfully apply for a claim in negligence. Volenti non fit injuria However, on the part of the coach and a team doctor, a standard defense against the claim in negligence exists which they can apply10. The defense is called volenti non fit injuria. This means that the two must establish that James, who is the plaintiff, willingly consented to the risk. In any case, the coach and the team doctor defended their actions by claiming that James “voluntarily consented to taking the (prohibited) substance.” Considering that the two may want to apply volenti non fit injuria as a defense to claim that they did not owe a duty of care to James as well as to overcome the claims of damage, it is important to examine their chances of success. Volenti non fit injuria is treated as a full defense under the Australian Law11. In this case, it can clear the coach and the team doctor of the negligence claims. Exoneration due to Volenti non fit injuria have recently been noted in the case Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council12. In the present scenario, the coach and the team doctor musts establish whether James voluntarily accepted to take the prohibited substance while knowing the risks involved. Thus two issues have to be examined: whether James was knowledgeable of the risks and whether he expressly (written statement) or impliedly agreed to take the substance and put aside claims of damage. In the scenario however, the law recognizes that even if the claimant knew of the risks, it is not sufficient. In which case, his consent must be voluntary. These two pre-requsites were stated in the case. These principles were held in the case Scott LJ in Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp13 . In any case, James was not aware that he was using a prohibited substance. This is because he assumed that all is well as he operates a “clean body’ policy and hence had never taken any such prohibited substance. Indeed, he was surprised when he tested positive. It is therefore difficult to build a defense on these grounds. Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether he had voluntarily agreed to run the risk of the injury14. Besides, by signing the contract to consent to using the supplements, it is difficult to establish that he agreed to use the prohibited substances or waive his legal rights15. Towards this end, it can be argued conveniently that the team doctor and the coach’s likelihood of successfully apply volenti non fit injuria as a defense is slim as James was not knowledgeable that he was using the prohibited substance. In addition, he did not consent voluntarily to use the prohibited substance. To conclude, James should be advised that he will most likely succeed in applying for claim in negligence against the coach and the team doctor. This is because the four elements of negligence (including damage, duty of care, breach of duty and causation) can successfully be established. Conversely, likelihood of the coach and the team doctor successfully applying volenti non fit injuria as a defense to claim will most likely not materialize. References Case Laws Chappel v Hart (1998) 156 ALR 517 Donoghue v.Stevenson [1932] 1 All ER 1 Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134 [2007] Richards v. State of Victoria (1969) VR 136 at 138 Warren v. Haines (1986) ATR 80-014 Books and Articles Harpwood, V 2000, Principles of Tort Law, Cavendish Publishers: Newport Newnham, H 2000, ‘When is a teacher or school liable in negligence?’Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp.1-55 Pearsoned 2009. Defences to negligence, viewed 13 August 2013http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/Cooke_C09.pdf Stickley, A 2007, 15 Year Old Volens to BMX Riding Risks, viewed, 13 August 2013http://eprints.qut.edu.au/14818/1/14818.pdf Yule, J 2008, ‘Negligent investigation by police : can a duty of care be found using the existing negligence principles in Australia?’ Journal of Australasian Law Teachers Association, Vol 1. pp. 379-389. Yule, J 2011, Defences In Medical Negligence: To What Extent Has Tort Law reform In Australia Limited The Liability Of Health Professionals?, viewed13 August 2013, http://www.alta.edu.au/resources/PDFs/JALTA/2011/Defences%20in%20Medical%20Negligence_Yule.pdf Read More