商业法案例分析.docVIP

Case 1 Issue: Was the ambulance center liable for Roses injury in car crash and delay of treatment? Rules: This question is about negligence liability. A person who suffers damage because of defects in a product, caused by the carelessness of the manufacture or other party responsible for the state of the goods, may have a right to sue in negligence. To be successful in a claim of negligence, the claimant must prove that: The defendant owned the duty of care The defendant failed to perform that duty The claimant suffered damage To consider whether the duty of care exists, the court must take into account the following criteria: Reasonable foreseeability. No duty of care will exist unless it is reasonably foreseeable that particular claimant was vulnerable to the risk created by the defendant. Proximity. There is a close enough relationship of proximity between the defendants acts and the claimant at the time of the wrong complained of. Public interest taking into account fairness, justice and reasonableness. A duty of care will not be acknowledged unless it is fair, just and reasonable and not damaging to the interests of the public at large, however beneficial it might be to the individual claimant. Application of the rules: The ambulance center did own Mrs Rose a duty of care. As she was the user of its service, she was somebody who reasonably foreseeably would be affected by the way the defendant processed its service. The medical employees didnt secure Rose to the portable bed and made Roses injury in car crash and delay of treatment, so Rose, the claimant, suffered from the negligence of the defendant. Public health considerations made it desirable to impose a duty, so it is fair to put the loss on the ambulance center who stood to profit in general from his service. Rose had to be transported by another ambulance to a hospital causing a delay in treatment, so she can prove that by objective standards the defendant failed to take care of her. There was evid