Answer no 1:
Negligence is defined in terms of both behavior and actions committed or omitted by a person that an ordinary or a responsible person wouldn’t have omitted or behaved in a certain way. Negligence is defined in terms of both actions committed or omitted. Negligence basically has five elements. If a person has to prove that the defendant is responsible for conducting negligence then he must prove all of these elements of negligence. Elements of negligence include duty, breach of duty, and cause, in fact, proximate cause and damages.
Duty:
The defendant must owe a duty to the plaintiff to be proved guilty. The judge will find out first whether the defendant owed certain duties to the plaintiff. If the defendant owed those duties and these duties are negligibly performed then the defendant is responsible for the negligence of those duties towards plaintiff. In this case, the manager owed a duty to serve hot to customers without causing any kind of injury. Customers had already complained that the coffee was not served hot. So it the responsibility of the manager to make sure that customers’ demands are fulfilled while ensuring the safety of customers. The manager should have served hot coffee in a cup that prevents any kind of accident since the restaurant is known to serve hot and fresh coffee. The manager had negligibly conducted his duty (Elements of a Negligence Case, n.d.).
Breach of duty:
In this the defended if fails to provide care or fails to undertake safety standards towards plaintiff, then the defendant is accused of breach of duty. In the case, the manager didn’t take care of the hot coffee being served even after increasing the temperature of the kettle. The manager should have taken care if hot is served it is served in safe utensils thus, avoiding any kind of damage. The manager in the case is responsible for breach of duty as he has violated reasonable standards of care.
Cause in fact:
The sufferer must prove that the behavior or actions of the defendant have caused harm or injury to him in order to prove that the defendant had acted negligibly. In the case, the customer has a strong point to say that if the coffee was served properly, he would not have suffered.
Proximate cause:
The defendant is only responsible for those damages that could be predicted and foreseen as a result of the breach of duty conducted by the defendant towards the plaintiff. In the case, the manager could predict that negligence in serving very hot coffee could cause injury to customers. Thus the manager is responsible for causing injury to the customer
Damages:
Damages must be proved in terms of a physical injury caused or a damage caused to someone property. In the case the customer suffered from third-degree burns, this the manager is responsible for the damage caused due to negligence in serving a very hot coffee.
Damages are mainly of two types. They are compensatory damages and punitive damages. In compensatory damages, the plaintiff is placed in a position that he would have been if the negligence was not conducted by the defendant. In the punitive damages, the defendant is punished for conducting negligence and others are warned for a similar act. The damage conducted in the case to the plaintiff is an example of punitive damage. The customer has suffered a physical injury that cannot be compensated. Thus the manager must be punished for conducted negligence and not properly, be taking care of safety standards. The customer suffered from pain that cannot be compensated in monetary terms. The customer, in this case, is more likely to win the case as he can prove that the manager has not properly conducted his duty, conducted a breach of duty, caused a damage and is responsible for the proximate cause. The manager in the case is responsible for negligence (Hosseini, 2013).
Answer no 2:
Tort reforms are meant to define some group of ideas or changes in laws that would limit the amount of compensation paid to the customers or another person who has suffered from the damage. In the case, few big hospitals were sued for causing harm to patients. Such law cases could hurt the repute of other hospitals too if they are engaged in such practices. Thus CEO’s of different hospitals sit together to declare a tort reform to reduce the amount of compensation paid to the plaintiff. Tort reforms actually violate the justice system of any country. It tends to take care or financial well-being of any corporation than physical well-being of people. Hospitals are scared of compensatory damages that must be paid if harm is caused to patients due to their negligence thus, they want to declare the tort reform. Tort reforms are usually declared for three common reasons
- To reduce the amount of compensation to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
- To make it difficult for the plaintiff to go to the jury trial
- To make it difficult for the plaintiff or the injured person to file a case against the defendant (Trend: Medical Malpractice Tort Reform, n.d.).
Being the CEO of a small hospital serving middle-class patients, I will present the following plan for tort reform:
- The hospital is not responsible for damages that were already communicated to patients, for instance, the hospital will not be responsible for side effects of a particular surgery or medicine since its effects were already communicated.
- The hospital will be a limited amount of those damages that were not communicated to patients.
References
Elements of a Negligence Case. (n.d.). Retrieved from Find Law: http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html
Hosseini, B. (2013, June 18). Types of Damages in Civil Litigation. Retrieved from http://www.hosseinilaw.com/types-of-damages-in-civil-litigation/
Trend: Medical Malpractice Tort Reform. (n.d.). Retrieved from Find Law: http://injury.findlaw.com/medical-malpractice/trend-medical-malpractice-tort-reform.html
