Cindy has cause of action against Greg for assault and battery. She has further caused of action against Dr de Witt for medical malpractice directly as well as the hospital indirectly.
When Greg threw a beer bottle at Cindy at a party, Greg assaulted Cindy. Cindy had a sense of apprehension and fear of immediate bodily harm that the bottle would hit her and harm her physically. Just in time, Cindy was able to duck, which helped her avoid the bottle.
When Greg threw the beer bottle at Cindy, he did so because he had lost control. Cindy had made a snide remark to him earlier, and he reacted to it by throwing the beer bottle. While Cindy's remarks could be construed as provocation, this does not justify Greg's actions. A reasonable person wouldnot have deviated from the standard of care towards others. Greg could also claim intoxication had made his judgment cloudy.He therefore was not sure what he was doing. However, self-induced intoxication is no excuse and can not serve as legal defense.
It must therefore be conluded that Greg has no valid defense against Cindy's claim of assault. Non-pecuniary damages would have to be determined.
Cindy has a further claim against Greg for battery. When Greg threw the beer bottle, he hit innocent Amy in the back of her head. As a result, Amy fell against Cindy, and Cindy cut her hands on the broken pieces of glass. Just as in the assault claim, Greg has no defense against Cindy's claim for battery. Damagesmust be assessed in pecuniary and non-pecuniary form. Pecuniary damages apply to the cost involved in seeking medical aid,time off work, as well as time off school and possibly missed assignment deadlines. Non-pecuniary damages would include pain and suffering and the inability to use her hands as a musician.
Cindy has a further claim against Dr de Witt. When Cindy arrived at the hospital, it was determined that surgery was indicated. Cindy agreed to the precedure as she was told what would happen. However, this informed consent was lacking when Dr de Witt dsicovered a tumor during the operation and when he decided to remove the tumor without consent. The resulting damage of loss of mobility at a rate of 30% is what Cindy's claim is about. As the doctor is an employee of the hospital, the hospital would also be liable in tetrms of vicarious liability. So, the law suit would name the hospital as well as Defendant.
So,now it is your turn to carry on.
