Legal Definition and Consequences of Careless Driving in the UK

Hanif hits Matthew as a result of careless driving. UK law defines inconsiderate or careless driving as driving with standards that are below those of drivers who are prudent and where such failures bring about another person’s death. Levels of blame have the tendency of varying widely from as little as moments of inattention to borderline driving that is dangerous. There exists no requirement for a drivers actions to be both inconsiderate and careless and as such, there are two offences here. These involve driving without attention and due care coupled by driving with zero consideration for all other road users which sums up as being inconsiderate.

It is worth noting that Hanif`s speed was within the 30mph restriction which disqualifies dangerous driving. He also has programmed his satnav to take him to his destination. He however becomes too drawn in looking for the turn that he does not even see a red traffic light at a pedestrian crossing that is immediately in front of him and he hits Matthew who dies from his injuries.

Some of the actions that amount to careless driving include overtaking on the inside, trailing other vehicles too closely, mistakenly driving through red lights and turning into the paths of other vehicles. It is worth noting that while in most instances a good indicator of careless ness is breach of Highway Code, that does not always establish guilt by itself. Courts of Law could find guilt with zero direct evidence of driving carelessly (for example the scenes eye witness). For instance, an inference of careless driving may be made by the court where drivers veer off as they try to overtake other vehicles and end up colliding with incoming vehicles or even cross diving lines. The penalty for Hanif`s offence is; a prison sentence of up to five years, disqualification that is mandatory for a minimum of one year and retest that is discretionary.

Rebecca hit Jaycee as a result of dangerous driving. In line with the Road Traffic Act 1988, bringing about death as a result of dangerous driving is defined as causing the death of another person by driving a vehicle that is mechanically propelled on any public place or road. The death by dangerous driving criminal offence consists of four offences majorly, all of which are derived from an equivalent that is non-fatal like the offence of simple dangerous driving. Dangerous driving`s consequences, that is, its fatality, is what enhances the seriousness of the offence. Driving dangerously is defined as driving in a way that is way below the minimum standards acceptable that would be expected of drivers who are competent and in ways that would be obvious to drivers who are competent that there are serious risks of damage to property or personal injury. At all times, there must be evidence that is clear that a fatality was brought about by low driving standards.

Dangerous driving acts could be classified in a number of ways and these include; aggressive driving, going too fast and racing, being ignorant of road signs and traffic lights, dangerous overtaking, driving when one is not fit, for example, when one has an injury, being distracted dangerously and avoidable, for instance, the use of a phone when driving.

Rebeca was driving a sports car at 65 mph in a zone with a speed restriction of 30mph which is quite risky, to add insult to injury, she is not even familiar with the town and she goes ahead to pick up her phone while driving which is quite incompetent. She should be convicted of the dangerous driving offence and her penalty should be; a jail sentence of up to 14 years, disqualification that is mandatory from driving any other motor vehicles for a minimum two year period and an extended retest that is compulsory.

Question 2

Today, misdiagnosis is a common form of clinical negligence. Pauline can make a claim for misdiagnosis negligence. With zero regard to whatever the reasons that are advanced for any misdiagnosis, any patient has a claim if they have suffered as a result of misdiagnosis of retained diagnosis. There exists three preconditions based on which Pauline can file her claim. 1) She was left undiagnosed and subsequently untreated, 2) She was given the wrong information about her medical condition, 3) She was advised to undergo treatment and take medication while she did not have the medical condition for which the medication or treatment was being prescribed. In this case, Pauline was given the wrong information about her medical condition. When Pauline went to see Dr Whittaker after she developed a lump on her leg, the doctor assured her that it was nothing to worry about and she could go on and continue enjoying her dancing. However, the lump failed to subsidise and four weeks later she visited Dr Whittaker again. The doctor noticed that the lump had grown larger significantly and referred Pauline to an orthopaedic surgeon who diagnosed her of aggressive bone cancer. The surgeon tells Pauline that had she consulted him four weeks earlier, a more minor operation could have been undertaken to remove the cancer and that would have saved her leg.

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson established the modern law of negligence. For Pauline`s claim to be successful, she will have to prove that she was owed a duty of care by Dr Whittaker and the doctor breached that duty. She will also have to prove that damage was brought about by the breach and the damage was not too remote. Pauline may make claims for psychiatric injury and pure economic loss. The amputation of her leg led to a large reduction in her income and she also suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress as a result of the amputation and its effects.

The Alcock test which was developed in the case of Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire applies for proving psychiatric injury. A restrictive approach is adopted by law for award pf damages as a result of psychiatric injury that is afflicted negligently.

In general, there exists no duty of care owed to avoid another person from suffering losses which are economic purely. However, when economic losses are incurred as a result of mis-statement that was negligent, liability is imposed as was established in the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council.

To establish if Dr Whittaker was in breach of his duty an objective test is carried out. The Application of the “but for” test helps decide causation. The test was established from the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital. The test would put into consideration whether the injuries inflicted on Pauline would not have occurred where it not for Dr Whittaker`s negligent acts.

Pauline also has to prove that the damage was remote. This implies that Dr Whittaker would only be liable if the loss was of a foreseeable kind. The losses incurred by Pauline were definitely foreseeable. Acting reasonably, Dr Whittaker would have done a better diagnosis of Pauline`s lump and asked her to see an orthopaedic surgeon early enough before her cancer became aggressive. That would have saved Pauline`s leg and job.

Pauline could be awarded special compensatory damages and general damages. Special compensatory damages are awarded for those financial losses that can possibly be calculated. On the other hand, general damages are awarded for those losses that cannot be calculated easily like suffering, pain and mental anguish. Here, Pauline would receive compensatory damages for hospital bills, medical bills and for earnings lost. Assessment of compensatory damages is not as easy, for instance, the value of lost wages would be much higher for members of the society that are more affluent in comparison to people who have retired and are poor.

Cases

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992]

Anns v Merton London Borough Council

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969]

Works Cited

• Hunt Q, 'Careless Or Inconsiderate Driving (Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 3)' (Best Criminal Defence Barrister, 2017) https://www.bestcriminaldefencebarrister.co.uk/criminal-defence-barrister-blog/2014/march/02/careless-or-inconsiderate-driving-road-traffic-act-1988-section-3.aspx accessed 4 May 2019
• 'Misdiagnosis Negligence Compensation Claim' (MedicalNegligenceAssist.co.uk, 2018) https://www.medicalnegligenceassist.co.uk/misdiagnosis-negligence-compensation-claim/ accessed 4 May 2019
• Mulheron, Rachael. Medical negligence: non-patient and third party claims. Routledge, 2016.
• Titchener N, 'Death By Dangerous Driving In The UK: What Offence Could You Be Charged With?' (Lawtons Solicitors, 2017) https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/death-by-dangerous-driving-what-offence-could-you-be-charged-with/ accessed 4 May 2019