Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
TORT PBL Submission

TORT PBL Submission

Ratings: (0)|Views: 569|Likes:
Published by Lam Kian Yip

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Lam Kian Yip on Dec 24, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
…………………………………………………………………
1
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
………………………………………………………
2, 3, 4, 5
 TORT PROBLEM BASED LEARNING: QUESTION
………………..…………………
6
 PLEADINGS OF THE APPELLANT
I.
 
DR.HARIS WAS NEGLIGENT FOR NOT SUSPECTING A TESTICULARTORSION AND REFERING AMIN TO AN UROLOGIST, RESULTING INHIS DEATH
………………………………………………………………………
7
 
A.
 
Dr. Haris owed Amin a duty of care as his doctor
……………………
..
7B.
 
Dr.Haris breached that duty of care owed to Amin
……………………
8
1.
 
The standard of care owed by a General Practitioner.
.………………
..
8
 2.
 
Dr.Haris has Breached that Standard of Care
………………………
...
10
 
C.
 
The breach of that duty of care by Dr.Haris resulted in Amin’s
death
..........................................................................................................
11
1.
 
Causation in Fact
……………………………………………………..
11
 2.
 
The death of Amin was reasonably foreseeable
……………………
...
12
 3.
 
Egg-Shell Rule
……………………………………………………….
13
 4.
 
 
The defence of contributory negligence can‟t be used by Dr.Haris…
.
14
 
D.
 
 
Compensation
…………………………………………………………
...
15
PLEADINGS OF THE RESPONDENT
I.
 
DR. HARIS WAS NOT NEGLIGENT FOR NOT DIAGNOSINGTESTICULAR TORSION
……………………………………………………
..
16A.
 
Dr. Haris owed Amin a duty of care as a doctor, general practitionerB.
 
Dr. Haris did not breach the standard of care
………………………
...
16
1.
 
Dr Haris acted in accordance to accepted current medical practice
.
16
 
 
2
2.
 
Dr Haris did not breach the standard of care in duty to diagnose andtreat
…………………………………………………………………
...
17
 
C.
 
Amin’s death was not caused by the misdiagnosis of Dr.Haris
...
18
1.
 
Lack of Causation in Fact
…………………………………………….
18
 (i)
 
Low probability of testicular torsion causing death to a personin a short period of time
……………………………………...
19
 2.
 
There is a break in the chain of causation by Amin and Puan Julia
.
20
 3.
 
The death of Amin due to testicular torsion is not reasonablyforeseeable by Dr Harris
……………………………………………...
21
 
II. ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT: AMIN HAS CONTRIBUTEDPARTIALLY TO HIS OWN DEATH DUE TO HIS NEGLIGENT ACT
.
23A.
 
Law of contributory negligence as defence in Malaysia
…………
.......
23B.
 
Elements of contributory negligence
…………………………………
..
23
1.
 
Claimant‟s „negligence‟ must be a contributory factor…………
.
24
 2.
 
The loss suffered by Amin is reasonably foreseeable
…………
...
25
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
………………………………………………………………..
27,
 
28, 29
 ANNEX I (APPELLANT)ANNEX II (RESPONDENT)
 
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIESSTATUTES
Civil Law Act 1956
………………………………………………………………………
23
 
CASES
Anns and Others v London Borough of Merton [1978] AC 728
……………………….…
7
 Barnett v Chealse & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
….
11
 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 ALL ER 118
……………..
8, 9
 Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997) 4 All ER 771
………………………
16
 Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 267
………………………………….
13
 Caparo Industries v Dickman and others [1990] 1 All ER 568
……………………………
7
 Capps v Miller [1989] 2 All ER 333
…………………………………………………......
24
 Chelliah A/L Manickam & Anor v Kerajaan Malaysia (1997) 2 AMR 1856
……………
7
 Chin Keow v Government of Malaysia & Anor [1967] 2 MLJ 45
……………………
8, 17
 Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402
…………………………………….
11, 19
 Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd [1949] 2 KB 291
……………………………...
14
 Defreitas
v O‟Brien and Connolly (1995) 6 Med LR.108 page 115……………………..
16
 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
……………………………………………………
7
 Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] I QB 518
…………………………….
22
 Dulieu v White & Sons. Divisional Court, [1901] 2 KB 669
……………………………
14
 

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Moovid CJ'w liked this
Su Wan Ying liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->