The Instigator
ash4476
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sml555
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Sullivan vs. Dr. D

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,147 times Debate No: 25626
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ash4476

Pro

Note - First round is just introductions. There are 3 rounds of debate.

Dr. D is facing a Wrongful Death Lawsuit in the death of Sullivan's long time partner in an automobile accident in which Sullivan was driving.

Con / Against - Dr. D. should not have initiated a process to take away Sullivan's driver's licence and therefore is not responsible for her partner's death.
Pro / For - Dr. D. should have initiated the process and therefore is responsible for the death of the partner.

The following facts are not in dispute:
- Sullivan steered her Toyota Corolla into oncoming traffic, causing an accident that killed Sullivan's partner who was sitting in the front passenger seat.
- Sullivan is currently 85 years old and holds a valid State Drivers License with 2 traffic tickets in the past 2 years.
- one is for going too slow in a 40 mph zone, the other is for weaving
- Dr. D is unaware of these 2 citations
- Dr. D is a practicing family physician in good standing with the State and Federal Medical Boards with no disciplinary actions.
- December 2007, Court Records show that Sullivan had told her doctor (Dr. D) that she has had some memory loss.
- tests showed a slight decline over the next year and in June 2009, Dr. D prescribed her an Alzheimer's drug
- when Sullivan complained her memory was getting worse, Dr. D switched her to another dementia drug
- Last time Dr. D saw Sullivan was in early 2010, two weeks before the automobile accident and Dr. D did not consider her memory problems serious enough to report to the DMV.
-As of December, 2011 - 92,000 people older than 80 were licensed to drive in State
-State law requires all drivers older than 70 to renew their license in person
-Last fiscal year, the DMV took away 26,482 licenses for medical reasons
-State has approximately 600,000 people with Alzheimer's disease
-In sworn deposition, Dr. D has said that he reported 10 patients for impairments over the last five years.

Disclaimers -
This is a fake debate case. Any resemblance to people, places, or events, live or deceased, is purely coincidental.
This does not take place in any specific state.
No copyright infringement intended.
sml555

Con

I am glad that I have got this opportunity to debate in this situation.
I may be a student in A-levels, I study the subject of law.

The fact that Dr. D had initiated the process of making Sullivan's driver's license invalid, ensures that he cannot be breaching a Duty of Care. He owes Sullivan a duty of care as they were partners a time.

This case cannot be put under manslaughter as Dr D had begun the proceedings for invalidating the driver's license. Neither can be sued for a breach of duty of care.

Hence, Dr. D could survive charges for a Wrongful Death Lawsuit with ease.
Debate Round No. 1
ash4476

Pro

There are two issues on your debate. The first is that Dr. D had not initiated the process of revoking Sullivan's license yet, in fact he claimed that Sullivan's health was well enough that revoking her license had not been considered as an option. Also, you claimed that Dr. D was Sullivan's partner, however it does not state that in the stipulations. Dr. D was simply Sullivan's doctor, not her partner. Her partner died in the car crash.

As for my point in this round- It can be safely assumed that swerving into oncoming traffic requires a considerable amount of disorientation. It states in the stipulations that Sullivan had visited Dr. D's office two weeks prior to the automobile accident. It is rare for that level of disorientation to onset in two weeks, therefore it is safe to say that Sullivan's disorientation was present during this appointment. Due to this, Dr. D should have noticed that disorientation and initiated a revoking of her license.
sml555

Con

sml555 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ash4476

Pro

I don't really have anything to add to my argument...
sml555

Con

sml555 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ash4476

Pro

ash4476 forfeited this round.
sml555

Con

sml555 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.