Hypotheticals to consider
- George sued Dr Bill for negligence (Dr Bill left a pair of scissors inside his patient, Gorge).
- Justice Thomas explained that a doctor owes a duty to be careful when dealing with patients.
- Fiona sued Dr Bill for negligence (Dr Philippa prescribed the wrong drugs to her patient, Fiona, and Fiona became sick).
- Both cases involve doctors breaching their duty to be careful when dealing with patients. George v Bill involved a pair of scissors left in a patient during an operation whereas Fiona v Philippa involved the prescription of drugs.
- Justice Alice followed the principle of law established in George v Bill because the facts of the two cases were very similar. George’s case set a precedent that must be followed in future cases with similar facts.
- Albert sued Jane for negligence (Jane gave bad financial advice to her client, Albert, in a situation where the average financial advisor would know better, and Albert lost alot of money).
- Both cases involve a professional person doing their job, but doing it without taking sufficient care. Someone else (a consumer, patient or client of the professional then suffered due to this carelessness). Albert v Jane involved a financial advisor giving bad financial advice to a client whereas George and Fiona’s cases involved doctors breaching their duty to be careful when dealing with patients (George v Bill involved a pair of scissors left in a patient during an operation and Fiona v Philippa involved the prescription of drugs).
- Justice Yeongsufollowed the principle of law established and confirmed in George and Fiona’s cases because the material facts of the cases were very similar.
- In explaining her reasons, Justice Susan used the phrase from the other cases, but changed it slightly to say all professionals owe a duty to be careful when dealing with their clients.
- Justice Yeongsu’s decision extends common law by making the law apply to all professionals rather than just to doctors.