Dania is a heart patient who has regularly been going for her check ups at S&J Hospital. Having undergone an open-heart surgery ten years ago, she is now diagnosed to have a leaking valve during her recent check-up. She is referred to the top cardiologist in the hospital for a consultation on the latest procedure to address the leaking valve. Dania is assured that it is a simple procedure in which a thin tube is introduced through a vein in the thigh and will slowly make its way to the heart to address the leak. Dania agrees to the procedure and signs the relevant consent form. The procedure starts off well and the leak is addressed, however as the thin tube is in the process of exiting the body, Dania's blood pressure suddenly drops causing her to suffer a minor heart attack. Dania survives but is traumatised by this whole procedure. Upon investigation, it is discovered that during the procedure, the tube was pulled a little too quickly which resulted in air bubble making its way to the heart. This air bubble is said to have caused the heart attack. Dania now wishes to bring a claim of negligence against the cardiologist at S&J hospital.

QUESTIONS Based on this scenario, explain the following;

(i) If the cardiologist owed Dania a duty of care. Use landmark cases to support this discussion.

(ii) If the breach of duty was to be considered foreseeable or remote.

(iii) If there is likely to be a successful remedy in favour of Dania.