Torts Law Case Study

FACTS

To celebrate his son's 14th birthday, Jim invited a number of his son's friends to his vast rural property in Gympie, Queensland. What made the celebration enticing to his son's friends was their chance to drive quad bikes that Jim owned. At the birthday party and after his son's friends had finished eating the delicious food, they went to the dirt tracks where two quad bikes were parked. He explained and demonstrated to his son's friends how to drive a quad bike and cautioned them about the dangers when driving quad bikes, especially as a result of rollovers. He reminded them always to drive slowly and carefully.

Everyone was having lots of fun driving the quad bikes until 14-year-old Matt, one of his son's friends, crashed into a tree on the property while driving one of the quad bikes. Matt's friends had earlier noticed that he wasn't driving slowly. Matt suffered serious head injuries. He was brought by ambulance to the nearest hospital in a stable but critical condition.

Question 1.Matt's parents have come to you, a Solicitor, for legal advice with respect to a possible negligence action against Jim. Advise Matt's parents with respect to a possible negligence action against Jim in relation to the above facts.

Question 2. Under the same facts above, although Matt's medical condition had been stabilized by the attending emergency surgeons, there was still some evident swelling and bleeding in his brain. Dr. John Smith, the lead surgeon, felt that a craniectomy (a type of brain surgery that involves removing a section of a person's skull) was an option to consider in order to ease pressure on Matt's brain. Without a craniectomy, there was a risk of severe and lasting brain damage to Matt.

After the initial emergency surgery on Matt, Dr. Smith met Matt's parents and discussed Matt's medical condition and prognosis. He told them that a craniectomy was likely needed to be performed on Matt further to reduce the swelling and bleeding of Matt's brain. Without a craniectomy, he told them, there was a risk of severe and lasting damage to Matt's brain. When Matt's parents asked about possible complications and success outcomes following a craniectomy, Dr. Smith informed them that the procedure has a high chance of success. From his own experience and according to one well-cited and well-regarded medical journal, patients who undergo a craniectomy make a good recovery. Of course, any medical invasive procedure on the brain carries risks,” Dr. Smith pointed out. Matt's parents gave their consent for their son to undergo a craniectomy. Following Matt's craniectomy, his medical condition generally improved. However, Matt suffered permanent brain damage, permanent impairment of the ability to speak, and permanent partial body paralysis.

Matt's parents have come to you, a Solicitor, for legal advice with respect to a possible negligence action against Dr. Smith. Advise Matt's parents with respect to a possible negligence action against Dr. Smith.

Question 3.Following their initial consultation with you, a Solicitor, Matt's parents have again come to you for legal advice. They want to know if Jim can be held liable for Matt's permanent brain damage, permanent impairment of the ability to speak, and permanent partial body paralysis following the craniectomy. Advise Matt's parents with respect to a possible negligence action against Jim in relation to Matt's permanent brain damage, permanent impairment of the ability to speak, and permanent partial body paralysis following the craniectomy and any defense (s) that Jim might raise.