In the literature, liability refers to the legal responsibility of one individual or entity to another individual or entity, which is often enforceable by civil remedy or criminal punishment (Anselmi, 2012). Going by this definition, not only is ACE Sports criminally liable for installing a faulty rim that had the capacity to cause grievous bodily harm to users, but the school is also liable for neglecting to put teachers and supervisors on standby while students were playing on the school grounds. In legal terminology, negligence is a tort, implying that it is a civil matter and does not involve the criminal justice system (Cornock, 2011).
The nurse is liable for neglecting to provide a duty of care to Bobby. According to Cornock (2011), “…a duty of care arises as a matter of law where a health professional is caring for a client, and undertaking tasks as part of normal and recognized duties” (p. 21). Consequently, it would be relatively easier for Bobby to claim that a duty of care was owed to him by the nurse but she failed to act on her part, leading to a sustained delay that influenced the decision to amputate Bobby’s limb.
Additionally, the nurse is personally liable for actions that led to wastage of time and thus the aggravation of Bobby’s injuries as she was supposed to follow the laid down policies that outline how a medical professional would have behaved. The nurse qualifies to be accused of neglecting to apply the EMTALA regulation, which demands health professionals and institutions to provide either stabilizing treatment or a suitable or speedy transfer for patients with emergency medical conditions (Cartwright-Smith et al., 2006). Bobby’s medical condition could have been categorized as an emergency, but the nurse took too long to treat or refer the patient even when the EMTALA required her to ensure the Bobby had access to emergency medical services regardless of the fact that he had no insurance cover (Cartwright-Smith et al., 2006).
Moving on, while it is clear that the City General can be held liable for failing to directly control or supervise the actions of the nurse (Anselmi, 2004), the surgeon is individually liable for amputating the wrong hand. The lack of staff control or supervision by the City General led to delays and lack of medical attention, which directly influenced the surgeon’s decision to amputate the injured limb. The surgeon is obviously liable for medical negligence, which is “…the conduct of health care providers that falls below the standard established by the law of negligence for the protection of others against unreasonable (clinical) risk or harm” (Huang, 2008, p. 199). The surgeon’s conduct, it seems, led Bobby to lose a fully functional limb.
Comparative Negligence
According to the Illinois Department of Insurance (2009), “…comparative negligence laws dictate how the responsibility for an accident will be shared between the parties directly involved in an accident where bodily injury or property damage was suffered” (para. 2). Two parties must be involved in comparative negligence and are generally perceived to have contributed to the accident in varying degrees. Consequently, comparative negligence is used not only in the determination of liability for damages but also in determining who will be granted compensation for losses/damages and how much will be received. In this case, for instance, the school, ACE Sports, nurse, surgeon, and the City General are all liable for Bobby’s medical condition, but in varying degrees. If comparative negligence laws are used to determine the culpability of the parties, it is clear that the surgeon, the nurse, and ACE Sports carry more liability than the school and, therefore, will contribute more to cover for the bodily harm caused to Bobby.
Joint & Several Liability
Joint and several liabilities are legal terminologies that denotes that each party involved in a tortious act (such as negligence) is separately liable for the full extent of the injuries or damages when it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that two or more parties are jointly and severally accountable for the tortious act (Prosser, 1997). In the event that Bobby wins the case against the parties mentioned in this paper (ACE Sports, nurse, surgeon, City General), it means that the liability for negligence and wrongdoing will be enforced against all the parties as a group and the plaintiff (Bobby) may collect the full value of the judgment from any one of them.
References
Anselmi, K.K. (2012). Nurses’ personal liability vs. employers’ vicarious liability. MEDSURG Nursing, 21(1), 45-48.
Cartwright-Smith, L., Rosenbaum, S., Belli, K., Purcell, E., & Weik, T.S. (2006). The application of the emergency medical treatment and labor act (EMTALA) to hospital inpatients. Web.
Cornock, M. (2011). A legal commentary on negligence. Pediatric Nursing, 23(1), 21-22.
Huang, Q. (2008). Clinical risk analysis under the law of negligence: A new approach to medical negligence prevention. International Journal of Risk Safety in Medicine, 20(4), 199-205.
Illinois Department of Insurance. (2009). Comparative negligence. Web.
Prosser, W.L. (1997). Joint torts and several liabilities. California Law Review, 25(4), 413-443.