Analysis Of Negligence Research Articles

Orientation and mobility remote instruction during COVID-19: Best practices, liability, and ethics

This research evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on orientation and mobility (O&M) services for school-aged students, families, and service providers. The survey asked O&M specialists about their instructional practices and decision-making processes regarding remote instruction service provisions, allowances, and district guidelines. The online survey collected data from October to November 2020, with open-ended responses from 166 O&M specialists. A thematic analysis was used to examine and code qualitative responses. Respondents were found to divide remote instruction into two categories, foundational skills and high-level travel skills. A preference for teaching foundational skills during remote instruction was also identified, with concerns for student safety and practitioner liability reported as the deciding factors. Field-specific guidelines and potential legal vulnerabilities regarding remote instruction are considered, with an analysis of negligence and professional liability. Practices used during COVID are also examined according to the COMS Code of Ethics and Scope of Practice. The findings demonstrate the need for field-specific guidance and research-based instructional methods regarding remote instruction. O&M specialists should continue to conduct a thorough risk assessment before utilizing new and unresearched remote instructional methods as a means of acting in the best interest of the student.

Analysis of Negligence in field of Neonatology in Medical Commissions Office in Tehran, Iran

Background : Despite progression of medical’s science, patient’s complaints are increased. Analysis of risk factors cause to decrease complaints. Methods: This research is a retrospective study of medical malpractice cases in neonates’ from 2012 to2014 in Medical Commissions Office in Tehran province. Results: Among 171 cases were studied, 53 cases were in neonatal period. 30.1% was announced medical malpractice. Ages of most infants were 0-10 days (88.6%), 66% of babies were male, 69.8% had full-term gestation, 62.2% APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, Respiration) score of neonates was above 7 and 73.5% of cases were the first child of the family. Most babies had cerebral palsy and asphyxia (20.7%), then respiratory distress syndrome (11.3%), furthermore shoulders dystocia and brachial plexus damage (7.5%). Ages of most plaintiffs (parents of neonates) were 30-39 years. Most of them were male, and their levels of education were high school and lower. The most cause of parent’s claim was medical mistake. Conclusion: Levels of parents’ education may relationship with complaints and increasing their awareness can effect to decrease these.

Giving Direction to Discretion

The common law established the doctrine of sovereign immunity whereby the government is not civilly liable for its misdeeds. The Supreme Court in 1821 adopted the doctrine for lawsuits against the United States. Legislatures can abrogate sovereign immunity. To a greater or lesser extent, all jurisdictions have done so in the United States. Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 1946 to impose liability against the federal government for acts of negligence, as determined by the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. However, a major exception in the FTCA exists for the performance of functions, i.e. when the government employee is engaged in an act of discretion. Congress though did not define discretion, which has left the statutory interpretation of a highly ambiguous phrase to the courts. Led by a series of Supreme Court decisions, many federal courts have defined the exception broadly, such that immunity is favored at the expense of safety and liability. Often even mundane acts of negligence are held to be acts of discretion. Cases finding discretion exceed those imposing liability. Attempting to draw a line between discretionary and non-discretionary acts often leads the courts to seemingly inexplicable distinctions. Significantly, the analysis of negligence does not arise until the issue of discretion is resolved. This article looks at how the discretionary functions exception plays out, especially with the public lands (Roughly 1/3 of the nation's lands are held by the federal government) and in government inspections. A series of cases led by the Ninth Circuit, and followed to some extent by the District of Columbia, Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, read a much more restrictive interpretation into the discretionary functions exception, thereby favoring liability and promoting safety. These cases first look at the act to determine if it is of the nature to be protected as discretionary - that is, grounded in social, economic, or political policy considerations. Even if the decision is a protected discretionary design, discretion is not involved in construction or maintenance. Nor can it be implemented in violation of objective safety or technical standards or building codes.

Many Duties of Care--Or A Duty of Care? Notes from the Underground

In the course of attacking the idea that the concept of the duty of care can be dispensed with and replaced by a view of negligence that deals only with fault and causation, critics have revived the notion that there are many duties of care. This article argues that the idea of many duties of care is unworkable, but that there is no need to revive such an idea to avoid falling into the view that the whole concept of the duty of care can be discarded. It argues instead for a unified view of the duty of care as a single duty. It also argues for a new analysis of negligence, facilitated by the one-duty view, which does see fault as central to negligence but which, instead of discarding duty, sees arguments about duty as about whether the defendant should be permitted to act unreasonably. The article defends the one-duty view and the new analysis of negligence against the relational view of negligence and against charges that it is motivated by a desire for unity between English and French law, that it would be incompatible with the conventional economic analysis of tort law (in the course of which it suggests an economic analysis of the duty of care), and that, unlike the no-duty view or the many-duties view, it fails to articulate a coherent view of the relationship between freedom and community.