According to some regulations, children are liable for the consequences of their acts if they are at an age in which they can distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. Bobby cannot be held liable for the injury because he was not capable of “forming the specific intent required to commit the tort” (Duhaime). If playing basketball is deemed as an adult activity, then Bobby can be as well held responsible for his action as would an adult participating in an adult activity.
A liability on the part of the hospital was possible after amputating the first and second wrist because according to EMTALA, there is a need for screening of the emergency medical condition. The hospital is also liable for the doctor’s action according to this regulation (American Association for Justice; The Free Library). The doctor stands to blame because although he attended to the treatment, he was misguided on the actual condition. His failure to address the actual condition led to the wrong diagnosis which led to the amputation of even the second wrist. A liability arises because of the negligence of the nurse to delay treatment and referral for better treatment once Bobby was brought to the hospital. In addition to providing urgent treatment, the nurse was supposed to make sure that the actual condition was determined for the necessary action. The delay in treatment resulted in a complication that made it necessary for amputation.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) (42 U.S.C. 1395dd (b) provides that hospitals may be sued by patients if there is negligence on the part of the practitioners relating to medical treatment. It is required that the hospital must stabilize the patient’s condition if the condition is emergency, before transferring them to a public from a private hospital. This is the case for hospitals providing Medicare benefits. For liability to occur in EMTALA, there has to be negligence of the duty to stabilize. The negligence is not based on the failure of the hospital to detect the condition. The negligence is counted on whether the hospital neglected the duty to treat, but after identifying an emergency medical condition. In fact, it is required that the doctors on duty be fully aware of the emergency medical condition, if a liability has to occur. A further explanation reveals that for a liability to arise, the requirement is for the hospital to determine that the patient is manifesting symptoms of sufficient severity so that his medical condition will be termed emergency. This is in contrast or diversion from the perception that the hospital must have knowledge of the “specific condition” of the patient (Stevens).
Comparative negligence is a principle of tort law which provides that each person’s negligence leading to occurrence of an accident, is based on their contribution to the accident. The use of comparative negligence determines who should be held responsible for the losses during or after accidents. For example, if a loss occurs during the accident, the injurer bears the total cost of the loss if he or she failed to take care prior or during the accident but the victim took it. Both of them would be expected to share the losses and damages if they failed to take “care” (Rossato).
Works Cited
Duhaime, Lloyd. “Children’s Liability for Torts and Personal Injury”. 2010. Web.
Rossato, Andrea. “An economic analysis of liability rules”. 1994. Web.
Stevens, Michael. “TORTS: EMTLA, Medical Negligence, and punitive damages — Larry O’Neil Thomas v. St. Joseph Healthcare, Inc. (COA 12/5/2008)”. 2008. Web.
The Free Library. “Patients may sue hospitals under federal law”. The Free Library. 2010. Web.