Question

1. An attorney in general practice tries but fails to create a trust that would have given his client a tax advantage. Though conceding his inexperience, the attorney argues that he did a fair job of working on the matter and that he did not have a duty to refer the client to a tax specialist. Do you think the attorney should be found negligent for his failure to seek assistance? Horne v. Peckham, 158 Cal. Rptr. 714 (Ct. App. 1979).

2. The father of a small child takes the child to an emergency room and tells the attendants that the child has ingested a large quantity of aspirin. The attendants specifically tell the father to advise the physician of this fact but the father fails to make mention of it. The physician diagnoses the child as having the flu. The child dies shortly thereafter, and the parents sue the physician for negligence. Should the parents be able to recover? What defense might the physician raise? Hudson v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., 219 So. 2d 524 (La. 1969).

3. A patient goes to his surgeon for a vasectomy. The surgeon amputates the patient’s testicle. On what theory should the patient base his cause of action and why? Whittington v. Mason 906 So. 2d 10 (Miss.App. 2004).

Answer 1

1. Yes, he can be potentially blamed for negligence as most of the professional work through coordination with other professionals to give the best possible help to the client. Hence he will be held responsible on account of negligence.

2. The parents would probably have difficulty with being able to recover for damages as the physician can raise objection on account of not having provided the appropriate information deemed necessary.

3. The person would be able to take a cause of action under negligence. Within this the person looks for remedies on the basis of negligence where there should have been appropriate care as per the situation and profession.