- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,304
- Points
- 113
Farewell, dear Keng Feng
Chitchat Tan Keng Feng (1948-2016)
- Thread starter CoffeeAhSoh
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,304
- Points
- 113
Attachments
din see your name there, you served him kopi
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,304
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,304
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,904
- Points
- 113
Deepest condolences.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 5,228
- Points
- 113
What is the law of torts? Not having studied law, I know that "but for" the fact that I know like rubbing shoulders with sweaty boys in a trading pit, I would have been a gazillionaire by now. So who do I sue for not having made use of available computer technology to enable electronic trading of index futures donkey years ago when I was considering what course to take at Nasional Universiti of Sinkieland:
Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform.
...........................
Both Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann delivered powerful dissents. Lord Bingham felt that even though Dr Afshar had been found not to have informed Miss Chester about the 1-2% risk of surgery failure, this did not mean that causation had been shown. It was necessary to say that if Miss Chester had been informed of the risk, that she would not have undertaken the operation at all. The risk was inherent in surgery, no matter who performed it. He also noted that there was in fact a conflict of evidence at trial about what Dr Afshar had actually said, and it was the judges' finding that Miss Chester had not been informed. Lord Bingham stated of the rules of causation generally,
"It is now, I think, generally accepted that the "but for" test does not provide a comprehensive or exclusive test of causation in the law of tort. Sometimes, if rarely, it yields too restrictive an answer, as in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32. More often, applied simply and mechanically, it gives too expansive an answer: "But for your negligent misdelivery of my luggage, I should not have had to defer my passage to New York and embark on SS Titanic". But, in the ordinary run of cases, satisfying the "but for" test is a necessary if not a sufficient condition of establishing causation. Here, in my opinion, it is not satisfied. Miss Chester has not established that but for the failure to warn she would not have undergone surgery. She has shown that but for the failure to warn she would not have consented to surgery on Monday 21 November 1994. But the timing of the operation is irrelevant to the injury she suffered, for which she claims to be compensated. That injury would have been as liable to occur whenever the surgery was performed and whoever performed it."[3]
Lord Hoffmann started his judgment with a direct answer. In his view,
"The purpose of a duty to warn someone against the risk involved in what he proposes to do, or allow to be done to him, is to give him the opportunity to avoid or reduce that risk. If he would have been unable or unwilling to take that opportunity and the risk eventuates, the failure to warn has not caused the damage. It would have happened anyway.[4]
And shortly after,
"In my opinion this argument is about as logical as saying that if one had been told, on entering a casino, that the odds on No 7 coming up at roulette were only 1 in 37, one would have gone away and come back next week or gone to a different casino. The question is whether one would have taken the opportunity to avoid or reduce the risk, not whether one would have changed the scenario in some irrelevant detail. The judge found as a fact that the risk would have been precisely the same whether it was done then or later or by that competent surgeon or by another."
[video=youtube;fuT4KuAZ6lQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuT4KuAZ6lQ[/video]
Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. The House of Lords decided that a doctor's failure to fully inform a patient of all surgery risks vitiates the need to show that harm would have been caused by the failure to inform.
...........................
Both Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann delivered powerful dissents. Lord Bingham felt that even though Dr Afshar had been found not to have informed Miss Chester about the 1-2% risk of surgery failure, this did not mean that causation had been shown. It was necessary to say that if Miss Chester had been informed of the risk, that she would not have undertaken the operation at all. The risk was inherent in surgery, no matter who performed it. He also noted that there was in fact a conflict of evidence at trial about what Dr Afshar had actually said, and it was the judges' finding that Miss Chester had not been informed. Lord Bingham stated of the rules of causation generally,
"It is now, I think, generally accepted that the "but for" test does not provide a comprehensive or exclusive test of causation in the law of tort. Sometimes, if rarely, it yields too restrictive an answer, as in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32. More often, applied simply and mechanically, it gives too expansive an answer: "But for your negligent misdelivery of my luggage, I should not have had to defer my passage to New York and embark on SS Titanic". But, in the ordinary run of cases, satisfying the "but for" test is a necessary if not a sufficient condition of establishing causation. Here, in my opinion, it is not satisfied. Miss Chester has not established that but for the failure to warn she would not have undergone surgery. She has shown that but for the failure to warn she would not have consented to surgery on Monday 21 November 1994. But the timing of the operation is irrelevant to the injury she suffered, for which she claims to be compensated. That injury would have been as liable to occur whenever the surgery was performed and whoever performed it."[3]
Lord Hoffmann started his judgment with a direct answer. In his view,
"The purpose of a duty to warn someone against the risk involved in what he proposes to do, or allow to be done to him, is to give him the opportunity to avoid or reduce that risk. If he would have been unable or unwilling to take that opportunity and the risk eventuates, the failure to warn has not caused the damage. It would have happened anyway.[4]
And shortly after,
"In my opinion this argument is about as logical as saying that if one had been told, on entering a casino, that the odds on No 7 coming up at roulette were only 1 in 37, one would have gone away and come back next week or gone to a different casino. The question is whether one would have taken the opportunity to avoid or reduce the risk, not whether one would have changed the scenario in some irrelevant detail. The judge found as a fact that the risk would have been precisely the same whether it was done then or later or by that competent surgeon or by another."
[video=youtube;fuT4KuAZ6lQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuT4KuAZ6lQ[/video]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 5,228
- Points
- 113
[video=youtube;gosY-UrpHcA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gosY-UrpHcA[/video]
cornucopiae
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2018
- Messages
- 1
- Points
- 0
Hello; pardon the intrusion and i was searching Tan Keng Feng and this came up pn your forum; it seems some here are aware of this man (whom has seemed to have passed on). Might any of you know if this man (he is a law professor) had any disciples or law student whom are familiar with medical fraud and such (the one's committing the fraud and cover up - are related to the state related hospitals and the PAP - so as you imagine getting legal help is not easy) as i seek to ask if there are any contacts of this man or such lawyers about and around in Singapore that are with gumption and not afraid to look into facts and the rule of law. Thank you
Similar threads
