Case Number
CrimA 70/64
Date Decided
6-22-1964
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
The appellant, a qualified hospital laboratory technician, supplied blood for transfusion to a patient without making sure - by inspection of the label on the bottle containing the blood and carrying out certain prescribed tests - that the blood was compatible with that of the patient. The two were in fact not compatible and after being transfused with blood supplied the patient died. The appellant was convicted and sentenced in the Magistrate's Court and his appeal to the District Court failed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, two submissions in law were made: that the acts or omissions of the appellant were only of the nature of "acts of preparation" and the effective cause of the death were the acts and omissions of the hospital staff to whom the appellant had delivered the blood; that the appellant owed no duty of care to the patient since in the circumstances it was not to be assumed that the blood would be administered without examination by others of the hospital staff.
Held: First, the mere fact that others are negligent in carrying our their duties does not break the causal connection between a person's initial negligence and the ultimate result. Second, every person owes a duty of care to the eventual victim when he does an act which may endanger the life or health of another and he cannot plead in defence that he relied on the fact that others might or should later take steps to avoid the danger.
Keywords
Torts -- Breach of statutory duty, Torts -- Compensation, Torts -- Fault, Torts -- Negligence
Recommended Citation
Cohn, Haim Herman; Olshan, Yitzhak; and Landau, Moshe, "Stroul v. Attorney-General" (1964). Translated Opinions. 376.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/iscp-opinions/376
