Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Forseeability Test

    Uploaded by

    EngHui Eu
    Dr. Mores removed Zeena's life support system. While Zeena was initially predicted to survive a few hours without it, Dr. Mores reasonably believed she was stable and could survive longer based on his medical experience and judgment. Zeena's death was ultimately due to her premature medical condition, not the removal of life support, as shown by the post mortem report. Foreseeability is a test in torts law for determining liability for intervening acts - if the intervening act and resulting harm were reasonably foreseeable, liability can still exist.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Forseeability Test

    Uploaded by

    EngHui Eu
    27 views2 pages
    Dr. Mores removed Zeena's life support system. While Zeena was initially predicted to survive a few hours without it, Dr. Mores reasonably believed she was stable and could survive longer based on his medical experience and judgment. Zeena's death was ultimately due to her premature medical condition, not the removal of life support, as shown by the post mortem report. Foreseeability is a test in torts law for determining liability for intervening acts - if the intervening act and resulting harm were reasonably foreseeable, liability can still exist.

    Original Title

    forseeability test.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dr. Mores removed Zeena's life support system. While Zeena was initially predicted to survive a few hours without it, Dr. Mores reasonably believed she was stable and could survive longer based on his medical experience and judgment. Zeena's death was ultimately due to her premature medical condition, not the removal of life support, as shown by the post mortem report. Foreseeability is a test in torts law for determining liability for intervening acts - if the intervening act and resulting harm were reasonably foreseeable, liability can still exist.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views2 pages

    Forseeability Test

    Uploaded by

    EngHui Eu
    Dr. Mores removed Zeena's life support system. While Zeena was initially predicted to survive a few hours without it, Dr. Mores reasonably believed she was stable and could survive longer based on his medical experience and judgment. Zeena's death was ultimately due to her premature medical condition, not the removal of life support, as shown by the post mortem report. Foreseeability is a test in torts law for determining liability for intervening acts - if the intervening act and resulting harm were reasonably foreseeable, liability can still exist.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

     Dr Mores’s act of removing life support system does not reasonably foreseeable that it

    would cause Zeena’s death. Although at first Zeena can is predicted to can still survive
    for a few hours without depending on the system, only that her chance is small, but it
    does not means there is no chance at all. In addition, due to his experienced and
    professional medical judgement, he later on decided that Zeena was stable and not
    vulnerable to change.
     Dr Mores reasonably believe that Zeena can still survive for a few hours without
    depending on the system, even longer than that since she was observed to be stable.
    Reasonable care had been provided to Zeena after removing the system to ensure
    that she still can survive. However, in contrast, Yasmine has a small chance of survival
    if system not immediately given to her.
     Therefore, it was the premature conditions of Zeena that cause her death. This is also
    proven by the evidence of post mortem report that her death is due to premature
    condition and no others.
     Foreseeability test:

    1. Torts Law Journal/(1997) 5 TLJ No 1/Articles/Making sense of liability


    for intervening acts(1997) 5 TLJ 45Making sense of liability
    for intervening acts Stanley Yeo *

    This was the case of Jemielita v R (1995) 81 A Crim R 409,89in which the
    appellant had been convicted of murder. The prosecution contended that
    the appellant had injected his wife with drug T pursuant to a suicide pact.
    On one view of the evidence, the wife had proceeded after the injection to
    voluntarily consume drug O which, in combination with drug T, proved
    lethal. Drug T on its own was not lethal. The appellant argued that the
    wife's deliberate and voluntary ingestion of drug O amounted to a novus
    actus interveniens. The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered a new trial with
    the following instructions, derived from the court's reading of Royall, to be
    given to the jury on the issue of causation and intervening acts:
    [T]he act of the appellant [in administering drug T] would nonetheless remain a substantial contributing
    cause of [his wife's] death, even though the jury might think that her conduct was irrational and
    unreasonable if, in the circumstances of this case ... the proper conclusion was that when he did the act
    in question, the appellant intended her death, foresaw it, or the jury concluded that her death was in all
    the circumstances and having regard to the state of his knowledge of them, reasonably to be foreseen
    by him.90
    2. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c100/4851f020f935c009b95622948faa804
    0bcc6.pdf
    R v Knutsen5 [1963] Qd R 157 (CCA, however, a more direct link was made
    to general issues about causation. In that case a man had assaulted a
    woman and left her lying unconscious on a highway. She was then run over
    by a passing motorist. The original assailant was convicted of doing grievous
    bodily harm, not with reference to the injures suffered in the assault but
    instead with reference to the injuries suffered from having been run over.
    All three judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal took the view that the
    assailant would have caused the victim’s injuries if they were a reasonably
    foreseeable consequence of his actions.
    3. TEXTBOOK

    You might also like