Introduction
Negligence is a failure or improper performance by an official of his duties as a result of an unfair or negligent attitude towards service or duties in office if this has caused significant damage or a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law. In other words, there is a term tort in jurisprudence, meaning a misdemeanor or offense that entailed harm and damage. When dealing with such cases, they use the idealized model of “reasonable person,” which means appropriate and adequate behavior that a person would adhere to in a similar situation to avoid the predictable risk of harm (Taylor & Elphick, 2019). However, here it is worth clarifying in more detail the line that separates actual accidents and deliberate delinquency requiring corrective justice.
The Main Elements
Malpractice is often highlighted in hospitals, among doctors, where the risks are incredibly high, and the cost of an error can cost someone’s life. Therefore, officials associated with such risks must exercise caution in every action they take, even when they are required to make quick decisions. The best prevention of negligence is the professionalism of a person whose mistakes manifest the human factor or health problems and not deliberate relaxation and neglect of any action required by the situation. The very moment of violation may not be noticeable at first glance or at first since the employee’s inaction may become a manifestation of negligence, or the consequences may be revealed later. In the latter case, it is essential to restore the cause-and-effect relationship to achieve justice and justice; otherwise, the likelihood of a deliberate mistake, even if not supported by the employee with any evil intentions, will increase. Consequently, the resulting damage should be assessed according to the actions that led to it. Below is an example from judicial practice and its interpretation is somewhat controversial situations, elements of negligence.
The non-obviousness of the decision may be dictated by the interference of state values. For example, Miller v. Jackson describes a case where houses were built near the land where people had played cricket for many years. In the course of the games, the property suffered damage, which was recognized as a consequence of the players’ negligence. Nevertheless, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, who had to compensate for the damage caused. This decision was dictated by the fact that the game of cricket is a public interest, which should prevail over private (Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966, 2019).
The Policy Role
The policy provisions in a malpractice tort are most often governed by domestic tort law. These provisions adhere to certain unspoken principles, for example, the floodgates principle. Judges use this approach to limit specific claims that the plaintiff can make against the defendant due to the possible subsequent massive number of claims (Gur, 2018). Therefore, judicial practice is always the most acute and topical because of attempts to maintain a balance of the above. Another problem is the insurance argument, which is considered in tort law regardless of whether a person has it or not. However, everything is not so unambiguous in judicial practice: there are cases when considering the availability of insurance that plays a significant role in the court’s decision. These typically include areas of equity liability, pain damage, and certain privileges and immunities (Ehrenzweig, 2020). The issue, however, is not limited to consideration of this fact; the court also tries to regulate the amount of compensation. Finally, it is worth mentioning the deep-pocket argument, implying that the responsibility for the activity should be borne by a person whose capabilities allow it (Schwartz et al., 2017). Below are examples from judicial practice that correspond to similar cases.
The first principle is confirmed by the regulation of non-receipt by the plaintiff of double damages. A similar case with Hodgson v. Trapp assumed that the plaintiff would receive government benefits intuition and mobility allowances to help cover the cost of his medical treatment. In turn, all payments received are deducted from the amount of compensation for damage due to negligence (Hodgson v Trapp – 1989, 2019). The latter principle is a reflection of subsidiary liability, which is discussed below. Another example is when the digging of a road by employees of one company required a power outage, on which the work of a nearby plant depended. The court’s lost profits were interpreted by the court only concerning the damaged metal damaged during the smelting process. However, the possible benefit from the lost time was not subject to compensation, which is enshrined in judicial practice as the compensation of only net economic losses (Spartan Steel v Martin – Summary, 2019).
Specific Situations
In some cases, the doctrine of subsidiary liability allows the employer to be held accountable, which in turn is responsible for its employees. Such a case was in judicial practice, when, as a result of an operation to straighten the bones on the hand, the patient’s fingers became stiff (Cassidy v Ministry of Health 1951, 2019). The court only needed to prove that the employer has control over his employees in this situation and therefore must bear the corresponding responsibility. As regards the possible illnesses of the defendants, this is clearly illustrated by the example of Mansfield v. Whitabix. The driver caused significant damage to another store due to ill health caused by malignant insulinoma. The question is whether a driver’s behavior with such a disease should be interpreted by the standards of behavior of a reasonable person. Establishing such standards is a strict responsibility that is unacceptable in tort law. The court acquitted the driver, which subsequently led to a more detailed and private examination of the standards of prudent behavior (Mansfield v Weetabix – 1998, 2019).
The Defences
Malpractice remedies generally include three main types. The first type is complicity in negligence when both the plaintiff and the defendant are at fault. It means that the plaintiff is “contributing” to his harm because his behavior does not meet the standards of a reasonable person. It leads to the second type – comparative negligence, where the plaintiff’s negligence also harms the defendant. In such a case, the defendant is entitled to a percentage reimbursement of his expenses for damages to the plaintiff. Finally, the third type is a voluntary risk. The plaintiff can confirm in writing or in another way that he takes responsibility and risks before entering a dangerous situation.
However, in judicial practice, there is a case where due to negligence that led to the train crash, the victim received post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of which he fatally wounded a person in the future. The criminal act and the costs incurred by it cannot be reimbursed, and it is impossible to take a narrow approach in the case of widespread illegality (Gray v Thames Trains Ltd – 2009, 2019).
Conclusion
The regulation of negligence cases depends on many indicators, which are regulated both by the individual characteristics of the case and by the interests of the court and the state. At first glance, decisions that are not obvious are always supported by judicial practice and the word of the law. Ultimately, the guilt of each of the participants in the process is assessed, and the burden of proof may lie on both the plaintiff and the defendant. The court does not allow positive decisions in favor of the plaintiff even with a particular fault of the defendant, guided by three principles that may violate other judicial practices and the very definition of negligence.
Reference List
Cassidy v Ministry of Health 1951. (2019). Web.
Ehrenzweig, A. A. (2020). Negligence without fault. University of California Press.
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd – 2009. (2019). Web.
Gur, N. (2018). ‘Ronald Dworkin and the Curious Case of the Floodgates Argument’, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 31, p. 323.
Hodgson v Trapp – 1989. (2019). Web.
Mansfield v Weetabix – 1998. (2019). Web.
Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966. (2019). Web.
Schwartz, V. E., Goldberg, P., & Appel, C. E. (2017). ‘Deep Pocket Jurisprudence: Where Tort Law Should Draw the Line’, Oklahoma Review, 70, p. 359.
Spartan Steel v Martin – Summary. (2019). Web.
Taylor, A., & Elphick, L. (2019). ‘Discrimination Law and the Language of Torts in the UK Supreme Court’, Available at SSRN 3402216.