The case Praesal v. Johnson.
- Issue
This case revolves an accident that saw Terri Lynn Praesel die due to Ronald Peterson fault that had an epileptic confiscation. The issue revolves the claims by the Praesel’s family that argues that the doctor who knew about the recent Peterson epileptic illness failed to notify the authorities that Peterson should not drive. As a result, her husband and mother filed a case against three of the victims physicians namely Dr. Raymond Johnson, Waller, and the Sadler Clinic. They felt that these physicians acted negligently due to their failure to warn the victim that he should not drive. The court thus tries to address the legality of the case.
- Rule
According to the court, there was an element of negligence in the case. However, for negligence to occur then three elements should be present. First, there must be a legal duty to a client. Secondly, there should be a breach of that duty by the provider and lastly, there should be damages suffered arising due to failure to owner the duty of care to the client. As a result, the court felt that as for the matter of law, these physicians did not owe a duty to third parties.
- Application
The appellants claim that the physicians owed the driving public a duty to warn Peterson not to drive. However, the court held that these physicians did not have a duty to warn epileptic patients not to drive. This case has relations to other cases such as GoldenV. Tips, 651 S.S.2d 364 and Flynn v. Houston Emergicare, Inc., 869 S.W.2d 403.
In the Flynn v. Houston Emergicare, Inc. case, there was a traffic accident involving a patient who was going home after receiving a treatment at Emergicare clinic. The patient had driven himself to the clinic for chest pains treatment. The doctor realized that the chest pains were because of cocaine use. As a result, the doctor gave the patient a medicine to help him slow the patient’s heart beat and lower his blood pressure. The doctor then released the patient without warning him not to drive. Flynn filed a case in the court claiming that the doctor acted negligently for failing to diagnose and monitor patient’s condition fully, to admit the patient for further treatment and to warn the patient not to drive. The court thus held that, the doctor was only guilty for nonfeasance since he did not create the cocaine impairment that led to the accident. However, it argued that the doctor had no duty of care to warn the patient not to drive.
On the other hand, in the Gooden case, DR. Tips patient caused an accident while she was driving under influence of Quaaludes that Dr. Tips had prescribed. Gooden claimed that the doctor acted negligently since he knew the patient was in drugs for a long period hence he did not expect her to take medicine as prescribed. In addition, Gooden also argued that the doctor failed to warn the patient not to drive while under the drugs influence. The court held that, the doctor had no duty to warn his patient not to drive.
- Conclusion
The court ruled that the three physicians under claims did not owe a duty of care to third parties. The court came to this conclusion after arguing that neither Johnson nor Waller had reason to know that the victim suffered the illness at any time during the three years before the accident with Terri Lynn Praesel. However, the court resolved that Wendenburg owed a duty to third parties to warn Peterson not drive since he already knew about the seizure in 1990 and had vowed to treat Peterson for epilepsy.
Graff vs. Beard
- Issue
The case revolves around Graff who invited a guest for a party offering alcohol to the guest. As the guest left the party in his vehicle while under alcohol intoxication was involved into an accident with a motorcycle thus injuring another party who happens to be Beard. As a result, Beard sued both the guest and the Graff.
The issue in the case was to know whether imposing a common law duty on Graff’s who held the party and provided alcohol that intoxicated adult when he knew that the guest will drive is justifiable putting into consideration the public policy provisions. The court wanted to ascertain as to whether the plaintiff was responsible for drinker’s behaviour.
- Rule
According to this case, the common law provides that the guest had power and obligation to take control of his behaviour. Drinking is a personal decision and the fact that alcohol was provided in the party does not mean that the guest was told to drink and thus it was a personal decision. In addition, decision on whether to drive or not still remains personal. As a result, the foreseeability and likelihood of damage caused by the accident is against the social utility attached to the guest’s conduct. In addition, the rule also surrounds the magnitude of the weight of defending against the injury and the impacts of placing the burden on the defendant.
- Application
The court looked on this case with an assumption that being a party the host needed to provide all what pertains a party where alcohol remain essential in this case. On the other hand, the court looked at the case in the sense that the host should have monitored the guest to know how much he should have taken in order to be comfortable with driving. Furthermore, the court will also look at the host unlikely to know among the guests present who was intoxicated and who was not. If the guest became intoxicated, the host had a duty to prevent the guest from driving. Moreover, the court also would assume that the guest would listen and honour the host if advised not to drive. However, it remains that the guest was responsible to watch his own alcohol consumption and not the host. This is to mean that the extended burden to the host with respect to the damage caused in unrealistic and thus impossible to enforce.
- Conclusion
According to the common law, it remained that the drinker was the person responsible for his own behaviour. Ideally, this is to mean that the Draff had no duty to prevent the guest from drinking alcohol or driving while drunk. In addition, the defendant could have sued the guest who they had direct collision instead of involving Draff who remains a third party in the case. As a result, the drinker remains personally liable for the accident and is guilty for the injury that occurred to the Plaintiff (Bread). It was upon him to control his behaviour towards drinking and driving while drunk.
