https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4 Martin v. Mineral Springs Hospital pg.364 en-us 2017-12-08 03:25:28 UTC 2018-02-26 01:15:08 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4/wish/214509644 Case Brief + Analysis Questions

Martin v Mineral Springs Hospital]]> 2017-12-08 14:53:00 UTC https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4/wish/214509644 https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4/wish/214512593 Cindy and Stephen Martin had a still born child. Doctor admitted the fetus was stillborn because of negligence. Martin sued the Mineral Springs hospital for damages, pain and suffering, and emotional loss of a child. The child was not born alive and then die, instead the fetus was dead at birth. And therefore according to the Fatal Accidents Act Martin could not recieve a payment for bereavement. There was also no financial loss established. The court decided to give her $60,000 in damages , psychological problems/trauma, prolonged labor and delivery and two surgeries she endured due to the doctors negligence.]]> 2017-12-08 14:58:30 UTC https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4/wish/214512593 https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4/wish/214512714 1. What type of damages were awarded in this case? Do you agree or disagree with this view?

Cindy Martin was awarded with $60,000 for nervous shock, ongoing psychological problems, prolonged labour/delivery, two c-sections because of the doctor's negligence. They didn't get the $43K because the child wasn't born alive.

We agree with the award of $60K. We disagree with the court's decision to not repay the Martins with the 43,000 settlement. The grounds for the courts decision was that the fetus was not born alive. Fetuses are considered biological human life, and the fetus was fully developed. Ceteris paribus, had the birth gone successfully, it would have been born legally alive. Under balance of probabilities it is a fair assumption that the negligence directly caused the loss which the doctor admitted. We can also establish the 4 criteria of negligence in this case, therefore they should have been repaid 43,000.]]> 2017-12-08 14:58:38 UTC https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4/wish/214512714 https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4/wish/214514784 4. Should Alberta change the Fatal Accidents Act to allow recovery for the loss of a fetus

I don’t think that it’s necessary to change the Fatal Accidents Act. Ms. Martin was rewarded more money than she was entitled to through the act. Since she endured prolonged labor and psychological problems, she was awarded $60,000, which is more than the $43,000 she would have received under the Fatal Accidents Act. Even if she hadn’t endured these problems, you can’t attach a value to a child who is born dead, which is why I think the act should stay the way it is.]]> 2017-12-08 15:02:19 UTC https://padlet.com/Baigs6/o8fv6wve1fl4/wish/214514784