This following scenario is related to Negligence and Duty of Care in General in Tort Law

Kelly, a nurse was a single mother with two children, Ben and Mary. Ben was a kleptomaniac.

He stole money and other things from his school without knowing, which was out of his control

and he was being treated for it. The Kowloon Tong Social Services Department (KSD) sent a

clinical psychologist, Sharon, to assess him. It was found that Ben at the age of 11 was still a

bedwetter and a difficult child with some psychological problem. Sharon, after a hectic day at

office, was too tired to complete the assessment and carelessly assessed that in order to deter

Ben, Kelly often scolded him or punished him.

The KSD organized a child protection conference and the children were put under supervision

of an officer of the KSD, Mr. Chan, for a year and their names were on the registry of troubled

children. However, Mr. Chan did not bother to come to supervise the children. The children

bore much humiliation and ridicule from their friends and neighbours. At a review proceeding,

the children were still thought to be under the risk of violence because of Mr. Chan's negligent

report. So, the children were assigned to another officer of the KSD, Mr. Roger. It was

discovered that had it not been for the negligence of Mr. Chan and Sharon, the children would

not be placed on the registry and/or any outsider's supervision and would not have faced the

consequences they did.

Kelly was unhappy about it and complained to the Chief of the KSD, stating that there was

maladministration and negligence on the part of the KSD officers who had carelessly placed

both her children under the supervision of Mr. Chan and then Mr. Roger. The process of getting

her children deregistered from the KSD registry which labeled them as 'troublemakers' had

caused quite a shock to Kelly who suffered from psychiatric injury.

Kelly sought to sue the KSD. However, the KSD claimed that its officers were under no duty

of care to the children and their parents suspected of being responsible for abuse of their

children.

Question:

1. Discuss whether Sharon (the clinical psychologist) and KSD officers (Mr. Chan and Mr. Roger) owe the duty of care to the children (Ben) and and to Kelly (the single mom) by using the relevant cases.

Instructions:

1. Use the IRAC approach to answer the questions.

(A) Identifying legal issues (Issue);

(B) Stating the relevant law regarding the legal issues (Rules);

(C) Applying the relevant rules to the facts (Application/Analysis);

(D) Drawing a conclusion on the legal issues (Conclusion).

2. Give arguments on behalf of the plaintiff/Claimant (i.e. Kelly) using relevant tort law concepts and case laws

3. Give arguments on behalf of the defendants (Sharon and the KSD officers: Mr. Chan and Mr. Roger) using relevant tort law concepts and case laws

4. Each side (both plaintiff and defendant) needs to challenge the other side by making arguments/rebuts based on the relevant case law or statutes.