Patient’s right and Law of Tort: ​Case study

Sheila, who lives in Australia, came in January 2009 for a two-month visit to her daughter Ruth and her family in England. She had not seen them for three years. In February she went to the children’s playground, run by St John’s Church, with her six-year-old granddaughter Linda. The local council, the Miserly District Council, had a statutory power to inspect such playgrounds but had not done so for six years. Linda played on a chute but on one descent her foot became trapped and she suffered a nasty gash on her ankle. Sheila managed to extricate her and took her to the Accident and Emergency Department at the Miserly Hospital. There were many patients waiting treatment. Hilda, the nurse who first examined Linda, classed her as being of low priority. Linda was not fully examined for eight hours. By that time Sheila had telephoned Ruth, who joined them at the hospital. When she was eventually treated, Linda’s wound was found to have been very badly infected. The wound did not heal and, to save Linda’s life, it was necessary to amputate her foot. If she had been seen immediately on arrival, the medical evidence is that she would have made a complete recovery after a few weeks.

Both Sheila and Ruth have suffered a recognized psychiatric injury.

Questions

• Explain in your own words what is meant by the Law of Tort (3 marks)

• Explain in your own words what is negligence (3 marks)

• Explain in your own words when does patients’ rights begin? (4 marks)

• Advice based on the lecture, as to any claims in tort by Linda, Ruth and Sheila. (10 marks)