NURSE DONALD TO APPEAL

NZ Truth, Issue 1127, 7 July 1927, Page 8

NURSE DONALD TO APPEAL

Breach of Duty Established In Claim for Damages

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) ,

"IIJTHEN Nurse VV Blan ch, c Donald, of Herbert Street,. Mt. lEden, brought a iclaim against Thomas Clarke, of tßotorua, for £9 lls: m respect of fees for, the treatment of his wife m ,the maternity home, a. counterclaim was entered toy Clarke for £6S

fx«o» ■ ou. uaiua&uo for alleged neglect. Mrs. Clarice a baby died. In his judgment, Magistrate McKean stated: "There is >a conflict of evidence as to what . took place when Nurse Donald went to Mrs. Clarke's room. "Mrs. Clarke says that Nurse Donald merely came to the door, saw her kneeling on the floor and asked whether she would like a cup of tea. "Nurse Donald says she went into the room and remained for about five minutes m conversation with Mrs. Clarke. "Shortly before 8 a.m. Mrs. Clarke, who had until then been left without! attention, gave birth to a child. , | "There is no contradiction of, and no reason for doubting, her evidence as to what occurred. "Her cries then attracted Nurse Donald, who went to the room and I saw the child, which by this time had been lifted by Mrs. Clarke and placed on the mat m front of her. "Even then Nurse Donald did not. remain with her patient, but left to procure materials. "The child, died two days later and Dr. Pettit, who, I_ am satisfied, had not at that time been informed of the circumstances surrounding 1 the birth of the child, gave a certificate that" the cause of death was, malignant Jaundice. "It was not until" flve days after the birth of the child that Dr. Pettit was

informed of what had happened and he then — thinking it possible that the child had sustained some " injury at birth — reported the matter to , the Health Department. ' "Nurse Donald gave to the department a statement Which satisfied them, but which, she now admits, was not quite accurate." THE BABY'S DEATH The magistrate expressed the opinion that the death of the child and the thought of inattention at the time of birth had brought about Mrs. Clarke's present condition of neurasthenia. The death of the child was probably the chief factor. "There Is no evidence that could possibly Justify a 1 findinfl that the death of the child was attributable to any neglect on the part of Nurse Donald," the ' S.M. continued. "It has not been established that the child sustained any/ injury at birth. The husband's claim for special damages must therefore fail. "On the claim for general damages, different considerations arise. It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine whether there was pn the part of Nurse Donald any neglect to. perform a duty. ■•' " '' "On this question I have to consider the evidence of medical practitioners. "Some of the witnesses who were

iiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiMimiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiilniiiiiiiinr^ | "I CANNOT believe that a j = ■ nurse would rehiain for five = 1 minutes with a patient who' had 1 | arrived at an early hour without | | making some reference to the | | patient's condition. I | "Nurse Donald admits that §' I she made no inquiry. I accept | I Mrs. Clarke's version as the § | more probable." — Magistrate | § McKean. | fiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiimiiiniihiiiiiiiiiiiniiiinnnnnniHimmmiini^

made by any examination; that no notice need be taken of what the patient says because, if she Is asked, she will always say that she is bad; that no notice should be taken of anything said; by a friend who accompanies a patient to a hospital because that will always exaggerate; and no

notice can be taken of the patient herBelf if she assumes a posture indicating that she is m pain.:' ■■'-'. • "Notwithstanding this curious evidence,. I am able to find from the medical evidence on both sidesithat there is a duty on the part of a maternity nurse to a y patient. "That duty has been stated, by one of Nurse, Donald's own witnesses to b» a duty to see the patient and form an opinion as to th« patient's qondition and then—if the nurse thinks there is time— to prepare the room. . "The evidence of Mrs. Clarke and the admission of Nurse Donald herself shows that no attempt was .made m this case to form an opinion as to the condition of the patient. ' ' . ' . . \ "In that respect there Was an " omission which constitutes a breach of duty," added the magistrate. "Moreover, the "patient was left alone for what seems to, be ah . unreasonably long time. "Stress was laid upon the fact that Mrs. Clarke did not complain to the probationer. " "There is evidence, however, that (women m Mrs. Clarke's condition are not. always quite normal and I cannot overlook the' fact ''that the probationer 1 Waß informed— and must have known when she assisted Mrs. Clarke from the cary- that Mrs. Clarke was m pain." . Magistrate McKean further stated

called on behalf of Nurse Donald have, m the capacity of experts/expressed the Opinion that there was no neglect. ; '.'Some of , th'e expert evidence seems very. curious indeed. ; "In such a case as this I am told that no; attempt to form an opinion as to the condition of a" patient must be that he considered there had. been a. breach of the ' regulations under the Nurses and . Midwives Registration Act/ 1925, and accordlngr to thoße regulations any breach is declared to be . negligence. ,' ■ ' ' ■■■ . ■ . ; j ■■"'"■':'■.,'■■' ',' t _'' \ "I am certainly of the opinion that the regulations are blndlnr on Nurse Donald. , The need for compliance with these regulations was explained by Dr. Hilda: iNorthcroft, but apart from the existence of the regulations lath of the opinion that a breach of duty has been established. !. \ ■■.;.-.* ',••■.'.■ -NOMINAi DAMAGES » "The evidence does not establish that Mrs. Clarke's present condition is the direct" or proximate consequence of that breach of duty. The husband, therefore, is entitled only to nominal damages, which, I fix at £1." . on, the counter-claim waS , given for v Clarke ' for £1, with Court costs ;ahd expenses of witnesses.' Magistrate' McKean held that Nurse Donald was entitled to be paid for. services^rendered. .-V . ; . ' "The slight annoyances of which Mrs. Clarke complains are Irisilffl- ■■■-. cient .to disentitle the- plaintiff to be paid," he said. "The only^ : duction I can make is m respect ef > the first day. Judgment for dB9/T; i ; Lawyer Dlckson (for Nurse Donald): "How can the Gourt^give judgment for nominal damages when 'it was found .; that Nurse Donald's conduct caused : no' real injury?" : ; :■.<•■■ v Magistrate McKeah: 'TToil have no right to criticise hiy decisibh k " " ;; „ . Lawyer .Dickspnt "Very well, I will have an opportunity in' the Supreme • Court. ' I ask your V worship 'to fix security for appeal.-* v 1 :; :':U:rV : : , T Security was fixed at £15 16s. ■'