Hi All,
Case 2
In the case of Marge v. Dr.Hibbert
, Marge could sue Dr.Hibbert for battery. Lionel Hutz could establish that the bone biopsy which Dr.Hibbert performed on Marge constitutes battery. Although the action of performing the bone biopsy didn’t cause any harm (the harm was caused by lifting weight)
, it still can constitute battery by itself since it violates Marge’s right to control her body and who touches it. Mr.Hutz could argue that there has been a deliberate physical interference (namely, the bone biopsy) with Marge’s body and that her consent only covers a muscle biopsy and doesn’t include the performed bone biopsy.
In the same case Marge could sue Dr.Hibbert for negligence. Mr.Hutz could argue that Dr.Hibbert’s negligence resulted in the injury that was caused to Marge when she lifted weight. This could be done by establishing that Dr.Hibbert’s failure to inform Marge about the bone biopsy that was performed on her
and [or] to convey the appropriate instructions for her safety after the surgery is considered a careless behaviour. Moreover, he could argue that the duty of care exists
, as it is reasonably foreseeable that Dr.Hibbert’s behaviour can and did cause harm to Marge. It is also reasonable to claim that had Dr.Hibbert thought of it, he would
’ve [have] realized that his failure to convey to Marge enough information about her situation could put her at the risk of breaking her leg. Dr.Hibbert is an adult whose behaviour put Marge at risk of breaking her leg; furthermore, his behaviour is not
[that] expected from a reasonable and professional doctor. Therefore, when applying the reasonable person test to determine the level of care that should have been exercised
, Mr.Hutz can safely claim that Dr.Hibbert’s conduct has fallen below the reasonable standards. The fact that Marge
[had] already broke
n her leg and that she broke her leg at the exact location of the bone biopsy could help Mr.Hutz establish that the damage is present and that it is a direct result of careless behaviour. But for Dr.Hibbert
's careless behaviour, no injury would
’ve [have]been caused to Marge.
Dr.Hibbert’s lawyer could defend his client against the battery charges by arguing that the bone biopsy was consensual since the consent that Marge signed contained a statement saying that she also consents to further and alternate measures as may be found necessary during the course of the operation. The bone biopsy can be argued to be a necessary further measure.
To avoid the negligence claims Dr.Hibbert’s lawyer could argue that Marge was also careless, th
us contributing to her own loss. Since Marge just recently went through
a surgery [surgical procedure] and since she was discharged with crutches, Dr.Hibbert’s lawyer could argue that a reasonable person would
’ve [have]been more careful and would
n’t [not]expose their leg to pressure until
it’s [it had] completely recovered.
The likely outcome of this case is that the court will find Dr. Hibbert not guilty for battery. This is because the consent signed by Marge contains a clause
where she consents to further and alternate measures as found necessary. The court will find Dr.Hibbert guilty for negligence as the duty to exercise care is established, there was a breach of the standard of care, causation is established and damage was evident. However, the court will take into consideration that Marge contributed –to some extent- to her injury. Therefore, the court will apportion responsibility between Dr.Hibbert and Marge depending on the extent of each party’s negligence.
If it was established that Marge had brittle bones and that her leg would not have broken had her bones been healthy
, the legal causation in this case could be questioned as the damage could
n’t [not] be reasonably foreseeabl
e. However, the result of the case will still be the same. This is due to the thin skull rule. Dr.Hibbert
can’t [cannot] avoid responsibility by claiming that he could
n’t [not] reasonably be expected to foresee Marge’s special condition. This is similar to the case of Smith v. Leech Brain and Co.
, referred to in the text book at the bottom of page 154.
Case 3 In this case Millhouse has a cause of action against the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and his cause of action is negligence. Although Lenny is the one who struck Millhouse, as Millhouse’s lawyer in order to get a better settlement I will advise him to sue the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant rather than simply suing Lenny. The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant organized their annual picnic at a local park and it is their responsibility to make sure that their event doesn’t result in public or private harm. They provided their guests with food and beverages including alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine. As a result of that it is safe to assume that the Springfield Nuclear Power plant knew that some people will drink and some will get drunk and it is their responsibility to make sure the ones who got drunk doesn’t [do not] drive. My claim against the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant can be established by proving that all the ingredients of negligence exist in this case. It is safe to say that it is reasonably foreseeable that allowing people to drive after they get drunk in Springfield nuclear Power Plant annual picnic will result in somebody getting hurt. It is obvious by the presence of Chief Wiggum that the SNPP officials who organized this event had thought that someone might get drunk and drive which will pose a risk of danger to others. Therefore, the duty to exercise care exists in this situation and the fact that Lenny and Carl, who were visibly intoxicated, were able to walk to Lenny’s car without anyone stopping them proves that the SNPP failed to live up to the duty to be careful. When organizing a picnic for all the employees of a nuclear plant in a public space it is reasonably expected to have more than one personnel [person] to control the crowd and make sure that no one gets out of hand. Therefore, we can safely establish that the conduct of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant of not providing enough policing for the event has fallen below the reasonable standards, consequently resulting in the injury of [to] Millhouse. The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant should have exercised greater vigilance in supervising its employees who are on a picnic in a public area with access to free liquor. Furthermore, a nuclear power plant who deals with hazardous materials is assumed to be more cautious when it comes to safety issues. Therefore it is safe to claim that the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant has failed the reasonable person test and was in breach of the standards of care. In this case the damage is evident with the serious injuries that were caused to Millhouse. Furthermore, we can claim that injuries that were caused to Millhouse were a direct result of Springfield Nuclear Power Plant’s careless behaviour. But for the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant’s careless behaviour of not sufficiently policing their event and controlling their employees, Lenny wouldn’t have been able to get to his car and drive while he was drunk and consequently hit Millhouse. Therefore, it is safe to claim that the legal and physical causation as well as the damage are present in this case. In their defence the defendants could argue that although it may have been reasonably foreseeable that injuries to the public could’ve [might have] been caused if the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant were careless in organizing their event and controlling their crowd, there is insufficient proximity between the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and Millhouse, therefore negating the duty of care. They could also argue that they were not in breach of the standards of care. The presence of Chief Wiggum could be considered as sufficient and the fact that Lenny and Carl were able to get to Lenny's car and drive away is due to them sneaking out to Carl’s car. The evidence to[for] this is that no one else caused any problems during the picnic. The likely outcome of this case is that the case will be dismissed in favour of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. The reason is the insufficient proximity between the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and Millhouse. This is similar to the case of Cooper v. Hobart which can be found in the text book on page 149. 
