![]() This differentiation is necessary because a doctor or lawyer would get away with many things if held to the standards of an average person. For example, a doctor will be evaluated under the reasonable standard of a doctor for their medical work. In 1532, during the reign of Charles V, a law was passed that required the opinion of medical men to be taken formally in every case of violent death this was the precursor to requiring expert testimony from a member of the profession in medical negligence claims, to establish the standard of care. 766.202 (4), the claimant shall have the burden of proving. (1) In any action for recovery of damages based on the death or personal injury of any person in which it is alleged that such death or injury resulted from the negligence of a health care provider as defined in s. Higher or broader standards of care apply to professionals and people of authority. 766.102 Medical negligence standards of recovery expert witness. Children receive a lower standard of care than an adult based on how a reasonable child of the same age would act. In most cases, the standard of care is just that of the reasonable person, but in some cases, a different standard will apply. If a person took medication that causes hallucinations for 1 in 1,000 people, the reasonable person arguably may or may not drive under those circumstances. In other cases, the situations are harder to determine. If a person were to drive under those circumstances, they would have breached the standard of care. ![]() For example, a reasonable person would not drive after taking medication that causes hallucinations for half the people that take the medication. Did the dentist violate the applicable standard of care Whether the dentist provided treatment above or below the standard of care is one of the biggest stumbling blocks of a malpractice lawsuit. In some circumstances, the concept applies very easily. The second element of negligence is: A breach of the duty to render care. Breach of duty of carereasonableness In order to determine whether a duty of care has been broken, the law adopts the artificial objective standard of the ‘reasonable person’, which involves ignoring the realities of the defendants situation in so far as their capacities differ from that standard ( Glasgow Corpn, per Lord Macmillan). The standard of care usually revolves around the concept of the reasonable person standard: whether someone acted with care as the average person would have in those circumstances. ![]() If a person breaches the standard that applies to them and their actions cause harm to another person, they will be liable for negligence. Standard of care is an essential concept in determining whether a person was negligent and potentially liable for a tort. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |