BL 260 Case Problem 1
- 1. Megan James 6 October 2013 Case Problem 1 I. The General Areas of the Law Plaintiff Defendant Theory Defense Alice JBanks Dr. RobertBoyce ResIpsa Loquitur Medical Malpractice Comparative Fault Alice JBanks ElksLodge JointLiability Proximate Cause Comparative Fault Superseding Cause ElksLodge Dr. RobertBoyce Superseding Cause Comparative Fault ElksLodge Cumberland Manor Comparative Fault Superseding Cause Comparative Fault Dr. Robert Boyce ElksLodge Superseding Cause Comparative Fault Resipsaloquitur Dr. Robert Boyce Cumberland Manor Comparative Fault Superseding Cause Comparative Fault
- 2. II. Explain Legal Theories/Defense Proximate cause plays a major role in this case. Proximate cause is defined as a natural and probable consequence of the wrong, that is, such as consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances ought to have been foreseen as likely to flow from the wrong (Proximate Cause, 4). Proximate cause has a foreseeability test, meaning when Alice Banks sat in the chair at the Elks Lodge, the Elks Lodge should have inspected all chairs to make sure none were defective. Superseding cause also comes from proximate cause, the difference is superseding cause was not originally foreseeable by the wrongdoer (Proximate Cause-Intervening and Concurrent Cause, 5). Meaning, the Elks Lodge could use the defense of superseding cause because the chair breaking was not foreseeable in their eyes; therefore they feel they are not at fault for the broken chair causing Alice Bank’s injuries. Joint liability also plays a major role in this case due to all the people who were liable for Alice Bank’s injuries. Joint liability is defined as where two or more people owe another a common duty, and by a common neglect of that duty the other person is injured (Persons liable-joint and several liability, 8). Because the Elks Lodge was responsible for the defective chair and Dr. Robert Boyce was responsible for the inaccurate surgery, both parties are responsible for her injuries. Superseding cause also applies to joint liability because had the chair not collapsed on Alice Banks, the surgery would not have been needed. When several are at fault for liability, each person is only responsible for his or her own tort (Persons liable-joint and several liability, 8). The Medical Malpractice Act is what Alice Banks will sue Dr. Robert Boyce for. The Medical Malpractice Act states that one must file a claim in Indiana with the medical review panel before taking the case to a trial court. This step can be skipped however, if the claimant and all defendants agree to skip this step. If so, signatures in writing are needed from all involved (Filings subject to medical review procedure, 18). To file a claim under
- 3. the Medical Malpractice Act in Indiana, there is a statute of limitations; the claim must be filed within two years after the alleged act, omission, or neglect (Statue of limitations, 22). According to Medical Malpractice in Indiana, Alice Banks cannot sue Dr. Robert Boyce for comparative fault because The Comparative Fault Act does not apply to medical malpractice actions against qualified health care providers (Medical Malpractice, 63). A medical malpractice plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) a breach of the duty by allowing the conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care; (3) a compensable injury that was proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty (Physicians and surgeons, 12). This statue applies to Alice Banks injuries because she can prove Dr. Robert Boyce breached his duty of care to her when he performed surgery on the wrong vertebrae. Her injuries were a direct result of Dr. Boyce’s negligence. Physicians are not held to a duty of perfect care, instead, a physician must exercise that degree of care, skill, and proficiency exercised by reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent practitioners in the same class to which he or she belongs, acting under the same or similar circumstances (Physicians and surgeons, 12). This states that the theory of medical malpractice can be used against Dr. Boyce because his degree of care and skill showed up careless as he continued to operate on the wrong vertebrae in Alice Banks’s back. Res ipsa loquitur applies in this case because the definition of res ipsa loquitur states “the facts speak for themselves.” And in this case, they do. The doctor performed surgery on the wrong vertebrae in Alice Banks back, requiring a second operation. Those are cut and dry facts. Res ipsa loquitur also says a hospital owes a duty of reasonable care to its patients. To establish a break of this duty, a plaintiff must proffer expert testimony that the care provided by the hospital failed to accord with the average degree of skill possessed and exercised by hospitals operating in similar localities (Negligence, 15). Any expert Alice Banks asked would agree that either the doctor or
- 4. one of the many nurses involved in the case should have noticed the error made in the vertebrae before the operation. Comparative fault plays a major role within this case because the Elks Lodge and Dr. Boyce are both responsible for Alice Banks injuries. In 1983, Indiana became the 40th state to adopt the Comparative Fault Act. The act provides a scheme for allocating liability among those whose fault has contributed to an injury (Negligence, 57). Therefore, the Elks Lodge is responsible for the chair collapsing and Dr. Robert Boyce is responsible for the wrong operation meaning both are at fault and both are liable for Alice Banks injuries. Cumberland Manor can also be sued for comparative fault because Alice Banks contracted a staph infection while under the care of the manor. Dr. Robert Boyce could also sue the manor for comparative fault because he feels he is not the only one liable for the damages of the surgery. III. Identify the Issues The main issues revolving around this case are that is the most at fault, how much compensation can be recovered, and what appropriate defenses can be used to help the defendants save money. Determining who is the most at fault is a main issue in this case. Proximate causes states the Elks Lodge is responsible for the broken chair, but Dr. Robert Boyce is also responsible because he performed the wrong surgery. Therefore, Dr. Robert Boyce claims an issue with his liability because had it not been for the chair the Elks Lodge provided, he would have never had to perform surgery on Banks. A second issue within this case comes from Medical Malpractice. For the Medical Malpractice theory to work, a claim for Medical Malpractice must be filed within two years of the incident (Hospitals, 18). Meaning, if Banks waited even a day over two years Dr. Robert
- 5. Boyce’s liability in the case would be dropped. Also for Medical Malpractice to work Banks must file a complaint to a medical review panel. If Banks chooses not to use the medical review panel, she cannot sue Dr. Robert Boyce for over $15,000 (Hospitals, 18). Another issue involving the Comparative Fault Act states, a defendant is only liable for the degree he or she is responsible for the claimant’s injuries or damages (Negligence, 57). This is an issue because it creates more complication in dividing up who is at fault for what. This states that the Elks Lodge will be responsible for the damage done by the broken chair, Dr. Robert Boyce will be responsible for the incorrect surgery, and the manor is partly responsible for not treating or cleaning the staph infection well enough. The issue involving superseding cause comes from who is responsible for the damages, but who is responsible for the damages that occur during a specific time. The court recognizes that it would be unjust to hold the defendant liable for damages following the superseding event (“Defenses of Negligence). This means that the defendant is reliable for events that took place before the superseding cause, but not responsible for all the events that took place after. For example, Dr. Boyce would be responsible for the incorrect surgery, but not responsible for the staph infection. The Elks Lodge is responsible for the injuries Alice Banks incurred from the broken chair, but the Elks Lodge is not responsible for any of the surgeries or infections that took place afterwards. A final issue involved in this case comes from res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur means “the facts speak for themselves.” The issues surrounding this means the plaintiff must prove the injuries came from someone else’s negligence and do not normally occur. This could be seen in
- 6. the example of the Elks Lodge providing a broken chair in which Alice Banks sat on and inquired injuries. After reviewing all the information gathered, one can conclude that the Elks Lodge is definitely not the only ones responsible. Dr. Robert Boyce also shares great responsibility for Alice Banks injuries as he required not one but two surgeries. This case turns out to have superseding cause as the leading factor as opposed to proximate cause. Had the incidents been foreseeable, proximate cause would be the only argument and would leave only the Elks Lodge responsible for Alice Banks injuries. However, superseding cause is the argument needed to be used because more than one party is at fault, and the second party is at fault because of the first party. All defendants showed negligence in their actions leading to multiple injuries to Alice Banks. IV. Argue Both Sides The most important argument to be made in this case is superseding cause as mentioned earlier. Negligence played a part in every aspect of this case from all the defendants. Superseding cause has also played a major role in numerous court cases. For example, in the case Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, superseding cause was also a main issue. In this case a bar fight occurred one night in the bar’s parking lot. The plaintiff was severely injured, and was beaten by another person at the bar who turned out to be underage. The plaintiff sued for the injuries he faced, but he did not only sue the person who beat him, but also the bar. The superseding cause was that had the bar not served alcohol to an underage person, the fight in the parking lot would not have occurred. The ruling was in the favor of the plaintiff. This case relates to Alice Banks’s case because in Banks case all defendants were negligent and superseding cause caused all
- 7. multiple defendants to be at fault. In Alice Banks’s case, the same rules apply. Banks sat in a broken chair provided by the Elks Lodge in which caused her injuries. But then when Banks received the wrong surgery on the wrong vertebrae in her back, Dr. Robert Boyce was also liable for the injuries she sustained after that requiring a new surgery. And then when Banks contracted a staph infection, Cumberland Manor is also at fault for lack of proper care. Each defendant is guilty of negligence, but each defendant played a part because of the negligence of the other defendants. In the case Sharp v. Labrec Inc., res ipsa loquitur played a major role in the deciding factor of the case. “Res ipsa loquitur recognizes that the defendant’s negligence may be inferred where physical cause of injury and attendant circumstances are such that, in light of ordinary experience, the plaintiff’s injury would probably not have happened if those who had management or control of causative instrument of injury had exercised proper care” (58 Ind D 2d-384). This states that had the people in charge of the crane that hit Sharp had exercised more care, the accident would not have happened. The same would go for Alice Banks case. Had the Elks Lodge management, or someone working for the Elks Lodge showed more care, they would have realized the chair was faulty and in bad condition, removing it from the Lodge, and preventing Alice Banks’s injuries. The Elks Lodge was in fact careless when they left a broken or damaged chair out for guests to sit in, and because of that statement, the facts speak for themselves on what happens when one sits in a broken chair. Banks v. Elks Lodge could however take an interesting route, because the Elks Lodge could use a defense stated in American Jurisprudence, “The mere fact a customer in a store falls from a chair, or that a seat or chair collapses, does not of itself establish negligence where there is no showing that it was defective, or where the properties of the chair or stool are readily
- 8. apparent and observable and where an invitee admittedly can perceive no danger from the use of the stool.” (62a Am. Jur. 2d Seats §557). This defense could be used to help persuade a jury or judge that had the chair not been obviously broken or damaged visibly, then the Elks Lodge had no way of knowing the chair had a chance of collapsing. This defense also mentions the invitee seeing the chair and not noticing anything unordinary or sketchy about the chair, which Banks had no mention of believing the chair was broken, and sat in it anyways. This helps to show that because the chair is not visibly broken and Alice Banks did not visibly see signs of the chair being broken, this should not constitute as negligence on the Elks Lodge’s part. V. Make your decision The first case of Alice Banks v. Elks Lodge, I would favor Alice Banks because of the Elks Lodge’s negligence and proximate cause. Had the plaintiff’s injuries not have happened in the Elks Lodge, neither would any of the other injuries Alice Banks incurred. The Elks Lodge was liable for the initial incident which then later created more incidents. Even if the Elks Lodge uses the defense of not being able to visibly see the broken chair, I still feel they are responsible for the injuries that took place. The Elks Lodge in my eyes becomes increasingly responsible because all other incidents never would have happened had the faulty chair been removed from the lodge or had the chair been unavailable to be seated in. In the second case of Alice Banks v. Dr. Robert Boyce, I would also favor the plaintiff, Alice Banks. This woman was just trying to fix the injuries she got at the Elks Lodge and because of the extreme negligence of Dr. Robert Boyce and the nurses involved she would have never had to endure a second surgery. Dr. Robert Boyce is liable for the second surgery due to Medical Malpractice. The doctor or at least one of the surgical nurses should have been able to
- 9. catch the error before he operated on the wrong vertebrae. For a room full of certified, practicing nurses and one certified physician, the error should have easily been detected and corrected before advancing in the surgery. As for the case of Dr. Robert Boyce v. Elks Lodge, maybe Dr. Robert Boyce’s compensation to Alice Banks could have been reduced because of the superseding cause between the doctor and the lodge, but both defendants of Alice Banks are equally guilty of negligence. Dr. Robert Boyce would not have had to perform surgery had it not been for the negligence on the Elks Lodge’s part, but Dr. Robert Boyce is still negligent in the sense he incorrectly performed surgery on the wrong vertebrae in Alice Banks’s back. Alice Banks v. Cumberland Manor should also favor the plaintiff, Alice Banks. I feel this way because a staph infection is very serious, and possibly could have been prevented by proper care. There is a possibility her wounds were not cleaned or treated correctly at Cumberland Manor, and now Alice Banks suffers yet again, another injury. Even if not at full fault, Cumberland Manor still owes Alice Banks compensation for their negligence in properly treating her while she used their facility as a rehabilitation center. Comparative fault ties together the Elks Lodge, Dr. Robert Boyce, and Cumberland Manor. Each played a partial role in the plaintiff, Alice Banks’s injuries. Each defendant is responsible for paying what they owe to Alice Banks. VI. Consequences Negligence is the overall ethical issue in each case. For the Elks Lodge, their name will probably remain good in the eyes of the public. This case could be seen as a simple, careless accident. The Elks Lodge will probably not lose much business over the issue, again, because
- 10. people will probably be more understanding of a simple chair break. As unfortunate as it is, Alice Banks will sue and win compensation for her injuries that occurred at the Elks Lodge, but they probably will not endure any loss of business or negative publicity. However, I bet the Elks Lodge is much more careful in the furniture for guests in the future. In Dr. Robert Boyce’s case however, he will probably face much loss of business. Personally, if hearing he performed surgery on the incorrect vertebrae in Alice Banks’s back, I would be far less trusting in him than in another licensed physician. Not only will he lose much money to Alice Banks for her injuries, once the news spreads of what happened people will begin questioning his practice and his name will probably be discussed of negatively. Dr. Robert Boyce will probably lose the most money out of this case due to medical malpractice. Cumberland Manor will also lose money, but they will probably lose more business than money. Cumberland Manor will also be spoken about negatively, just as Dr. Robert Boyce. As a patient in a hospital or rehabilitation center, a patient puts a great amount of trust into the trained and licensed professionals taking care of them, and once that trust is broken which in Banks’s case it was, word will spread of this and Cumberland Manor will also have trouble finding patients who will want to have them responsible when such a large negligence case was filed. While looking at all the defendants in this case, it is clear who most at fault for Banks’s injuries. Because the incident took place at the Elks Lodge, they are most responsible for what happened. Though Dr. Robert Boyce will probably pay the most money wise, they are less liable for what happened ultimately, but still more liable than Cumberland Manor. In my opinion, Cumberland Manor is least at fault, but still owes Alice Banks for the injuries she got while
- 11. staying there. Overall, had the defective chair not been available for Alice Banks to sit in, she would never have had to get surgery from Dr. Robert Boyce or recover at Cumberland Manor.