Introduction
The case of Bobby is one of the many cases that occur today based on collective negligence from various parties, who—if had acted responsibly—would have salvaged the situation. Negligence is simply one of the torts that allow from prosecution of people charged with “neglecting” to act responsibly or with diligence. As will be later explicated below, several factors come into play for one to be considered having acted negligently. Notably important, it is inherent to state that the laws on negligence-as well as other torts or civil wrongs—hugely vary from one country to another. It is therefore consequential that before going to report a case of negligence, you confirm what type of laws are in place to avoid wasting time in the justice corridors and ending up empty-handed (Aaron 14).
Background—overview into key concepts used in the essay
Before deeply delving into Bobby’s unfortunate case, I am going to start by introducing us to some fundamental concepts that will greatly determine the critical analysis that will come, therefore.
Preliminarily, a tort is a word, with a French origin, which simply means a “wrong” or civil wrong that is committed against someone else. Its main difference with other types of offenses is that whereas other criminal offenses are generally viewed as a breach of duty to the country; a tort is a breach of duty owed to someone else. Examples of torts include slander, health accidents, auto accidents, environmental pollution among many others. In most modern countries, the standard measure of a tort is said to be negligence (CMS 14).
As for negligence, it generally refers to the failure to act diligently or the omission of responsible behavior when it is your primary duty to do so. Larson and Needham et al. state the following three points as the weighing scale for negligence. Firstly, the plaintiff must prove the unreasonable behavior of the defendant. Secondly, the plaintiff must have evidence to show that he/she suffered some loss or damage, and thirdly, there should be proof to show that someone failed to act carefully as any normal person would. These are normally represented in four statutes normally referred to as the elements of negligence which are: duty of care, breach of duty, breach based on a proximate cause, and finally, breach causing harm (Aaron 15).
There are fundamentally two basic forms of defense against negligence. First is comparative negligence which commonly refers to a legal defense that a plaintiff’s negligence is also viewed as a contributing factor in a case, and thus reduces the number of damages the plaintiff recovers. Second is contributory negligence where a defendant is partially or fully held responsible for the damages even if the plaintiff might have contributed to the negligent act (Aaron 25).
In the analysis of liability today, most countries tend to like comparative negligence since it seems fairer and representative of the involvement of both parties as stated above.
Main discussion-Potential liabilities of the involved parties
In analyzing Bobby’s case, I am going to look at each involved party and the type of tort that makes them viable for potential liability.
To begin with, the nurse is primarily liable for negligence based on the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) which obligates medical officials to offer emergency help to patients even if the victim is not able to be medically insured for the treatment. Elementally, she, therefore, breached the duty. Additionally, the nurse is potentially liable for gross negligence since she failed to act promptly as any other normal person would be expected to (CMS 14).
Moreover, the hospital that employs the nurse is potentially liable for vicarious liability. This is based on the fact that their regulations greatly determine how the nurse works (Aaron 14). So the failure to treat Bobby accordingly, stipulated by EMTALA makes them a contributing factor to the damages and in breach of the element of duty.
Additionally, the surgeon—who is probably the most guilty person or tortfeasor in this case—is firstly liable for proximate cause. This is based on his careless behavior that led to Bobby losing two limbs even after assessing that it was the right limb that required amputation. Again, Dr. Andrews, the surgeon, is potentially liable for both gross and ordinary negligence due to a breach of the elements of duty and care despite being a professional (Needham et al. 3).
Last but not least, Bobby’s mother is also liable for vicarious liability based on the fact that she did not have insurance which contributed to Bobby’s delay for treatment at the City general hospital. This is the negligence element of breach of care which is something that every mother should do.
Conclusion
In finality, it is imperative to state that, in as much as courts provide a good avenue for airing out our legal problems or even getting compensation for harms done to us; it is far much better that each one of us takes the short route of committing to acting diligently and responsibly to avoid taking the long highway of legal justice. Furthermore, to someone like Bobby, even if he may get compensated for all the damages, that will not be able to give him back his arms or give him restore the emotional stability that he once had.
Works Cited
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services (CMS). “EMTALA.” Web.
Kepner, Needham, Fish & Jones. “Contributory and Comparative Negligence.” Find Law. N.d. Web.
Larson, Aaron. “Negligence and Tort Law.” Expert Law. 2010. Web.