Background: "Having defibrillators available in public places could help save the lives of five or six New Zealanders each day. A person's chance of surviving a cardiac arrest doubles if they get a jolt from a defibrillator within the first couple of minutes. There are already more than 2000 publicly available defibrillators in the greater Auckland region and more than 7000 across the country but more are needed to make sure everyone has the best chance of survival. [The evidence indicates that a] person's chance of surviving a cardiac arrest was about 15 per cent but that jumped up to more than 30 per cent if CPR was started straight away and a defibrillator was attached within two or three minutes." NZ Herald 11 April 2017
Facts: Gavin is visiting his local tax office when he suffers a cardiac arrest. There is no defibrillator in the building. As a result, there is a delay getting the required medical treatment and Gavin suffers brain injury which might have been avoided had there been a defibrillator on hand.
Required: In Rolls Royce NZ Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey [2005] 1 NZLR 324 (CA), Glazebrook J (at [58] states: "Should there be a duty of care ...? The ultimate question when deciding whether a duty of care should be recognised in New Zealand is whether, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, it is just and reasonable that such a duty be imposed." Having regard to what Glazebrook J says in Rolls Royce, do you consider that there be a duty of care to provide defibrillators in those buildings where the public has access? What are some of the policy considerations / arguments which might be raised for and against such a duty? For the purposes of this discussion, you may assume that there would be no cover for Gavin under the accident compensation scheme. A couple of subsidiary questions to ponder for future discussion - Do you consider that there would be such cover under the accident compensation legislation? What relevance, if any, do you think it has to the duty of care inquiry that the evidence suggests that chance of surviving a cardiac arrest is only increased by around 15% if there is a defibrillator available? Do you think such evidence would have significance in relation to any of the four questions which are relevant in the tort of negligence?
a) Yes, there should be a duty of care to provide defibrillators.
b) No, there should not be a duty of care to provide defibrillators.
c) Policy considerations for duty of care: Increased chance of survival, public safety.
d) Policy considerations against duty of care: Cost, training, legal liability.
