Find answers to your questions and expand your knowledge with IDNLearn.com. Our platform is designed to provide quick and accurate answers to any questions you may have.

A surgeon made a mistake during a complicated operation that led to
permanent nerve damage in the patient. When the patient brought a
malpractice suit against the surgeon, the surgeon defended himself by
appealing to the principle of the reasonable person. He argued that most
reasonable people would not have been able to perform the operation without
any mistakes, so he should not be held responsible. Is his argument valid?
A. Yes, because malpractice is a type of negligence, and negligence
standards are determined by the principle of the reasonable
person.
O B. Yes, because if the patient is a reasonable person, he is responsible
for choosing a doctor who won't make mistakes.
C. No, because in the medical field, the standard of expected care is
defined by the standards of the profession, not an average person.
O D. No, because the average reasonable person would have declined to
undertake such a complicated surgery.


Sagot :

I believe the answer is A: yes because malpractice is a type of negligence, and negligence standards are determined by the principle of reason

Answer: C

Explanation: got it right on APE X

Thank you for contributing to our discussion. Don't forget to check back for new answers. Keep asking, answering, and sharing useful information. IDNLearn.com has the solutions to your questions. Thanks for stopping by, and see you next time for more reliable information.