KneeFix is a medical device manufactured by KneeKing Pty Ltd. KneeFix was designed to be inserted into the knee joint during knee replacement surgery. KneeFix was sold and used in Australia for a decade before it became apparent that the product was defective. The product was not tested properly, and the metals used in the device causes gangrene to grow in the leg and in serious cases this has resulted in leg amputations. It was foreseeable that the metals used in the device, when implanted into the body, could lead to gangrene.

Adam had KneeFix inserted only a month before the product was recalled off the market. As soon as he found out it can cause gangrene, he had it removed. His removal surgery went smoothly, and he recovered well. As a result of the defective device and the need to have the surgery to remove the device, Adam went through pain and suffering, lost income and paid additional medical expenses. Adam had minor signs of gangrene growth, but this just required Adam to take anti-gangrene medication for a few months post-surgery.

A year after the device removal, Adam found out he had developed a rare autoimmune condition which will cause him lifelong problems. Testing shows the rare condition was caused by a reaction to the anti-gangrene medication. It was not foreseeable that the anti-gangrene medication could lead to the rare condition given the available medical knowledge at the time.

Ben had KneeFix inserted and when he heard about the defect, he went to his knee surgeon, Dr Sleepy. He did tests on his knee and thankfully no gangrene had grown yet so he booked in to have the device replaced. On the day of the surgery, Dr Sleepy was performing other surgeries for KneeFix patients and got confused. Instead of replacing the device for Ben, Dr Sleepy amputated Ben's leg. Ben woke up from surgery distraught to find he had no leg.

Using the IRAC method of legal problem solving, advise Adam and Ben on potential negligence claims they each may have. Include in your answer a clear identification of:

1. The most appropriate defendant/s for each plaintiff; and
2. The harm or damage that each claim would cover; and
3. The likely success of each claim.

Do not need to consider any potential liability of the hospitals where the operations were performed.

Assume that the common law as modified by the Civil Liability Act 2002(NSW) applies. Support answer with the cases and legislation.

I need help assessing all elements of this hypothetical, and doing above response