Reference no: EM132253867

Gemma owns a small company in Chai Wan, which manufactures ladders. Fred, who works for Gemma, went into a storeroom to fetch a can of oil. The oil was stored on one of the higher racks in the storeroom and Fred needed a ladder in order to reach it. The only ladder available was old and rusty. As Fred was climbing the ladder, a step snapped and, as a result, he fell and cut his leg badly on the rusty ladder. Fred was immediately taken to Chai Wan General Hospital. After an examination, he was given an anti-tetanus injection by Dr Howell, who failed to follow the correct procedure for giving the injection. Dr Howell should have given Fred a small dose of anti-tetanus and then should have waited 30 minutes to see whether Fred had an allergic reaction before giving him the full dose. Dr Howell gave Fred the small dose but waited only five minutes before giving him the full dose. Unfortunately, Fred was allergic to the anti-tetanus injection and, as a consequence, he suffered brain damage. Upon investigation, it was established that even if Dr Howell had followed the correct procedure and waited 30 minutes before administering the full dose, Fred would still have suffered brain damage. Required

a. Describe the test for establishing whether a breach of duty has occurred.

b. Explain whether Gemma has breached her duty of care to Fred.

c. Identify the requirements for establishing causation in negligence and explain whether Fred can establish causation for his brain damage in a negligence claim against Gemma.

d. Explain whether Dr Howell’s failure to follow the correct procedure will have any effect on the chain of causation in relation to Fred’s brain damage.