Torts 2 Week 9

The medical practitioner/patient relationship is a recognised category of duty

• True

• False

What is involved in the medical practitioner/patient duty?

• The relevant duty of care is to exercise reasonable care in respect of examination, diagnosis and treatment of the patient and in the provision of information

• The relevant duty of care is to exercise reasonable skill in respect of examination, diagnosis and treatment of the patient and in the provision of information

• The relevant duty of care is to exercise reasonable care and skill in respect of examination, diagnosis and treatment of the patient and in the provision of information

Which case determined a doctor owes a duty of care to a person who is not their patient in an emergency?

• Hargrave v Goldman

• Lown v Woods

• Rogers v Whitaker

• Sideaway v Benthlem Royal Hospital

What is a material risk?

• A reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, if warned of risk, would be likely to attach significance to it

• A reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, if warned of risk, wouldn't be likely to attach significance to it

• If the patient is or should reasonably be aware that the particular medical practitioner, if warned of the risk, would be likely to attach significance to it

• If the medical practitioner is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient, if warned of the risk, would be likely to attach significance to it

The court said the Dr should have known from her questions that she would attach significance to the risk and thus it was material under the...

• Chappel test

• Lown test

• Hargrave test

• Rogers test

Failing to warn a patient is under what section of the CLA?

• s 22

• s 9

• s 10

• s 21

What are some areas which are difficult to prove for causation in medical negligence?

• Evidential difficulties

• Failure to warn

• Loss of chance

Where the defendant's negligence consists of a failure to warn the plaintiff, the plaintiff must establish on the balance of probabilities that they would have responded to warning in such a way as to avoid the danger. Which case is this from?

• Chappel v Hart

• Rogers v Whitaker

• Rosenberg v Percival

• Neal v Ambulance Service of New South Wales

Neal v Ambulance Service of New South Wales determined in regard to failure to warn, what is important to consider?

• Conduct of the plaintiff at or about the relevant time

• Evidence of the plaintiff as to how he or she might have felt about particular matters

• Evidence of others in a position to assess the conduct of the plaintiff and his or her apparent feelings or motivations

• Other matters which might have influenced the plaintiff

Tabet v Gett held you could recover for loss of chance

• True

• False