Law-Paul V. State Family Services Agency

2172 Words9 Pages
I. Paul v. State family services agency 1)Standard of care In this case, Paul had been neglected by his mother twice and he was under the trust of the state family agency which did not respond to the phone call made by Deirdre’s neighbour regarding the second fall.Paul had from the balcony.Paul could allege that the State family services agency was negligent in two different ways: first, by returning him to his mother’s care before she was able to look after him properly; secondly, by failing to intervene to take him back into State care after receiving the neighbour’s telephone call. The State family owes Paul a certain standard of care, in the matter relating to the past encounter they have had with Deirdre being unfit to take custody over Paul The subject of whether the State family services agency acted negligently would rely upon an evaluation of what a reasonable agency in the same position would have done, which would be a mixed question of fact and law for the jury to decide. It is not clear what kind of a review the agency undertook before returning Paul to Deirdre’s care, but it did take some steps to satisfy itself “that Deirdre’s addictions were under control and that she was capable of looking after her son”. If it acted with reasonable care in making that assessment, then obviously it will not be held liable because it was not negligent at all. 2)Proximate Cause A proximate cause can be defined as a cause that is enough or sufficient to inflict a liability. It can be considered as an omission or an act considered in law resulting to a consequence so that liability can be imposed on the one who performed the act. It must be the cause that produced the event directly. Proximate cause is links negligence to liability when it is used in Tort law for an injury inflicted by an accident. Furthermore, there can be more than one proximate cause of
Open Document