Cases for Final Flashcards
1
Q
Mustafic v. Smith
A
DEMONSTRATES NEGLIGENCE VS. ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT
- Mustafic voluntarily admitted, physician suspected mental illness but needed more observation for final diagnosis
- Dr. gave Mustafic day pass (since voluntary)
- Mustafic went and shot his 2 kids and then committed suicide
- mother sued saying that he breached SoC in giving day passes without final diagnosis
- TRIAL JUDGE: making diagnostic mistake/judgement error aren’t liable if they had reasonable care + considered all relevant factors
- Mustafic’s conduct not foreseeable, not liable
- COURT OF APPEAL: dismissed appeal
2
Q
White v. Turner
A
- sued plastic surgeon after bad breast reduction
- Claimed negligence for…
- using Strombeck instead of newer
- not developing plan in advance
- executing the surgery (operating too quickly + didn’t check tissue tension @ end)
- COURT: dismissed first 2 b/c of expert evidence in SoC, found negligence in performing surgery (not standard practice)
3
Q
Jinks v. Cardwell
A
- patient drown in hospital tub after hypotensive reaction to meds
- severely disturbed, had same reactions to meds before which were recorded in chart, and meds weren’t working in reducing his agitation
- COURT: hospital had duty to safeguard psych patients –> breached SoC
Hospital negligent for
- only 2 nurses on duty
- giving meds w/o checking BP
- not putting highly agitated patient in observable room
- not fixing broken emerg alarm in bathroom
4
Q
Muir v. Alberta
A
- Muir admitted to provincially run training school for mental defectives w/o psychometric testing and hasty info about her problems
- 5 months later psychologist told her there was an emotional involved not a primary mental deficiency
- still kept in the school
- psychometrist testing 2 years later
- testing = IQ low, but well in school and no behavioural problems
- given anti-psychotics even though not psychotic
- irreversibly sterilized at 14 without meeting criteria
- self-discharged at 21, learned about sterilization way later
- sued province in negligence
- Court: province legible for
- failing to follow legislation in labelling patient
- ignoring expert advice
- not doing proper assessment
- giving meds w/o justification
- sterilization against provincial law
- given $$$$ in damages
5
Q
Crawford (Litigation Guardian of) v. Penny
A
- on behalf of Melissa Crawford
- defendants = family Dr.’s during pregnancy (Penny was primary)
- knew first baby born after 3 days of labour, and HBW second baby, knew Melissa would be HBW
- Mrs. Crawford = >40, obese, hypotensive, etc. –> high-risk
- Dr. Penny consulted with Dr. Healey about inducing labour
- Healey didn’t examine before agreeing
- during delivery, Melissa became stuck, Healey arrived to help
- Melissa was O2 deprived –> catastrophic injuries
COURT Penny = negligent for - not diagnosing GDM with lots of signs - not recognizing his lack of experience - keeping up with obstetrics field - recognize this was high-risk that needed to be referral to bigger facility - consider C-section - tell Healey about risk factors - stop inducing after complications Healey = negligent for agreeing without examining or without independent judgement
PENNY
- “Locality Rule” - he should be held to lower standard of care
COURT
- No, rural Dr. have to be aware of training shortfalls
- —> LIABILITY OF CORRIDOR CONSULTS Declaration
- Dr giving even corridor consults owes Duty of Care to patient
- still need to meet Standard of Care of reasonable Dr. in giving this professional advice
- opposite to U.S.
6
Q
Till v. Walker
A
- disabled patient that got meds via 3 tubes (1 needed sterile procedures)
- Nurse Walker gave meds without sterilization
- patient got life-threatening septicaemia
COURT
- Walker negligible for giving Meds without asking supervisor of procedure
- Victorian Order of Nurses (VON) = responsible for patient care –> negligible for giving complicated case to RPN
- VON vicariously liable
VON = 75%, Walker = 25%
7
Q
V. B. v. Cairns
A
- girl told Jehovah’s witness elders she was sexually abused by dad from 11-15
- elders told her confront dad
- didn’t want to but complied
- horrible meeting (forced to explain in detail)
- she sued church and elders for negligence + breach of fiduciary duty
COURT
- elders owed Duty of Care
- Elders = negligent in ordering confrontation and not contacting pro
- fiduciary duty not breached (if existed) because elders acted honestly/in good faith
8
Q
Turkington v. Lai
A
- surgeon operated on patient to remove ovarian cyst, but removed both ovaries after seeing condition
- accidentally cut bowel, gave post-op complication
- patient sued for negligence in recommending and doing surgery, and not informing risk of bowel cut
COURT
- Surgeon acted reasonably
- rejected plaintiff’s expert advice and claim of no informed consent
- risk of bowel cut not serious material risk, not required to disclose
- “do nothing” not accepted alternative, not required to explain
- patient didn’t establish that if she knew it would’ve altered her decision to do surgery + reasonable person would have surgery given ovary size
9
Q
Layden v. Cope
A
- patient with previous gout, went to GP about pain and foot lesions
- both Dr said gout and gave meds
- continued treatment with deteriorating condition and concerned nurses
- days later, referred to specialist
- conditioned deteriorated, leg amputated
COURT
- not liable for initial misdiagnosis
- liable for negligence in failing to consider other diagnoses with deterioration + failing to refer sooner
10
Q
Villemure v. L’Hôpital Notre-Dame
A
- patient admitted on emergency basis to psych ward after suicide attempt
- Dr recommended moving from there to semi-private room without married windows
- patient asked to go back, but was refused, left unsupervised
- suicide
- Dr + nursing staff = liable in negligence for failing to supervise/safeguard patient
11
Q
Shackleton v. Knittle
A
- ambulance attendants allowed patients to sit in front seat during comfort
- given no warning or special instructions + looked no-risk
- patient grabbed wheel, caused fatal crash
- found NOT guilty of criminal negligence causing death b/c mental disorder
- patient sued in negligence
COURT
- attendants not negligent (not warned, common practice, his file saying paranoid schizo isn’t enough for special precautions)
12
Q
C.D. v. Newfoundland (Minister of Social Services)
A
- Plaintiff physicially/emotionally abused by foster mother + sexually by mother’s bro
- complaint - social worker didn’t believe or investigate
- 2nd complaint - another SW did investigation, but OG stopped her
- months later, SW finally intervened but bullied plaintiff into taking allegations back
- got worse, but director left her there
- new foster home, that foster father sexually assaulted her
- plaintiff sued first parents, first SW, and director of Child Welfare
COURT
- foster mother = breached fiduciary duty by abusing
- foster father = breached fiduciary duty by failing to protect
- SW = negligent for failing to monitor, not taking action, then biased intervention after
- director = vicariously liable for SW’s negligence, and leaving plaintiff in foster home after it got worse
13
Q
D.(M.) (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia
A
- Ministry refused app got Molly’s aunts for custody b/c needed special care
- Ministry staff gave Molly (addicted infant) to Ms. Kierkegaard, knowing she wasn’t ideal
- Ms. K was single parent caring for special needs foster infant, no income, had broken leg, didn’t have the special requirements
- 4 days later, Molly admitted with catastrophic injuries after being shaken, Ms. K pleaded guilt to criminal negligence
- Molly’s aunt sued Ms. K and Ministry
COURT
- Ms. K liability admitted
- Ministry = negligent for failing to ensure proper communication, placing Molly with Ms. K
(staff didn’t have good faith execution either)
- Ministry = vicariously liable for Ms. K’s behaviour
14
Q
R.(G.B.) v. Hollett
A
- girl in school for young girl offenders
- superintendent got complaints that employee helped girls run away, gave drugs
- complaints valid, recommended firing but not fired for months
- during then, he counselled the plaintiff, had sexual relationship with her
- after fired, helped plaintiff run away and then emo/phys/sex abused her
- she sued employee & institution
COURT
- School = liable for not firing
(relationship wouldn’t have developed BUT FOR not firing)
15
Q
T. (a minor) v. Surrey County Council
A
- mom saw Mrs. W’s ad for child care
- called local authority adviser, who confirmed Mrs. W was registered and no problems
- adviser knew another infant had been injured possible due to violently shaken
- Mrs. W not deregistered since not proven it was her, but recommended she not take kids <2.5
- mom put T with Mrs. W, who shook her causing brain damage
COURT
- adviser knew or should’ve known risks
- Adviser + local authority = negligence of misstatements
(infant wouldn’t have been put with Mrs. W BUT FOR the adviser’s lack of truth)
