3 causation cause in fact even if hp is under duty of

This preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 5 pages.

3. causation” cause in fact”; even if HP is under duty of care and breached the required standard of care, she will not be liable unless the negligent conduct was a cause of the plaintiffs loss. Plaintiff must prove that “but for” the defendants negligence, the loos would not have occurred. 4. remoteness of damages; once established the defendant negligently caused the plaintiffs loss, the court must decide if the casual relationship between the defendant negligent act and plaintiffs specific loss is too tenuous or remote to warrant recovery. Defendants liability is usually limited to losses that ARE foreseeable result of the defendant negligent act. 5. actual loss ( damages); plaintiff must establish that they suffered a type of loss that is recognized as being recoverable in tort law. Certain losses such as death/grief are not recoverable at common law but Ontario legislations permits dependants and family members to recover for the financial losses and loss of care, guidance, companionship that resulted from another person’s deaths. 6. prejudicial conduct the plaintiff has the burden of proving the first 5 elements of a negligence action on a balance of probabilities the defendant has the burden of proving the 6th element on a balance of probabilities defendant may raise the plaintiffs own conduct as a factor that should be taken into account to reduce or eliminate the plaintiffs claim. Two most important defences are contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risks. (b) Duty of Care the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed him or her a legal obligation to exercise reasonable care for his or her benefit a duty will generally arise in any circumstances in which the defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiff the relationship between health professionals and their patients gives rise to a duty to exercise reasonable care in the provision of all services and care wrongful positive acts vs failures to act while a broad duty of care in negligence was imposed for wrongful positive acts, traditionally no duty of care was imposed for failing to act for the benefit of another (i.e. no duty to treat, rescue, render aid or control) (c) Standard of Care and its Breach the great majority of negligence suits against health professionals turn on whether the standard of care was breached health professionals must meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable professional colleague (i.e. a neurosurgeon is held to the standard of care of a reasonable neurosurgeon)
courts rely on expert witnesses to provide evidence on the appropriate standard of care and whether it was breached

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture