Hello, I am in need of assistance to answer the following question in tort law (according to English Law): Graham was employed as a waiter. He prided himself on his physical appearance and his ability to carry trays and dishes with dexterity and professionalism. He developed a tremor in his arm, which affected his ability to carry out these tasks, and consulted Dr Holly about the problem. Dr Holly recommended a surgical intervention in an area of the brain from where she felt that the tremor was emanating. She warned Graham about the 1% risk of stroke associated with the operation. However, she did not inform Graham of the facts that (1) there was a new pharmaceutical drug available on the market which might alleviate the tremor and which had a 0% risk of stroke, or that (2) the surgical procedure also had a 1% risk of affecting nerves around that area of the brain stem which could affect bodily functions such as continence. Graham underwent the operation. He was left incontinent, and without improvement in his tremor. Graham says that, had he been informed of matters (1) and (2), he would never have had the operation. The evidence gathered suggests that Graham loved his job, was determined to carry on as a waiter for the rest of his working life, and had little interest in retraining for any other work, prior to the operation. Dr Holly provides a witness statement to the effect that she was concerned that, had she warned Graham about the risk of incontinence, he would have suffered adverse psychological effects, given his fastidious attention to his appearance. Meanwhile, Dr Holly was devastated about the bad outcome for Graham. This had never happened to her before in her professional career. She decided to take temporary leave of absence from her work. She looks after her 4-year-old daughter Ilia. Dr Holly and her husband Jethro had had an acrimonious divorce and Jethro fought a long and unsuccessful battle for custody of Ilia during which he made various unsubstantiated allegations about Dr Holly’s attitude to Ilia. Jethro wrote to the Keto Social Services Department (‘Keto’) to allege (correctly) that Ilia had told an aunt that Dr Holly was being very unpleasant and was not cooking proper food for her. Because of Jethro’s previous behaviour, the social worker Lena did not believe him, did not investigate further, and told him that she was recommending that he be denied all contact with Ilia. Jethro was greatly distressed. During the following two months, Dr Holly’s neighbours made various reports to Keto that Ilia seemed to be in an unhappy and neglected state. A different social worker Maisie investigated and decided that Ilia should be removed from her home and placed in a council children’s care home for two months while Dr Holly received psychiatric care. At the end of the two months, Ilia was sent back to live with her mother. Maisie made no enquiries as to Dr Holly’s mental state at that time. After a few more weeks, Ilia was found to be in very great distress and had tried to harm herself. Plans were then put in place to take her permanently into care. Advise the parties as to any liabilities arising in Tort.

Hello, I am in need of assistance to answer the following question in tort law (according to English Law): Graham was employed as a waiter. He prided himself on his physical appearance and his ability to carry trays and dishes with dexterity and professionalism. He developed a tremor in his arm, which affected his ability to carry out these tasks, and consulted Dr Holly about the problem. Dr Holly recommended a surgical intervention in an area of the brain from where she felt that the tremor was emanating. She warned Graham about the 1% risk of stroke associated with the operation. However, she did not inform Graham of the facts that (1) there was a new pharmaceutical drug available on the market which might alleviate the tremor and which had a 0% risk of stroke, or that (2) the surgical procedure also had a 1% risk of affecting nerves around that area of the brain stem which could affect bodily functions such as continence. Graham underwent the operation. He was left incontinent, and without improvement in his tremor. Graham says that, had he been informed of matters (1) and (2), he would never have had the operation. The evidence gathered suggests that Graham loved his job, was determined to carry on as a waiter for the rest of his working life, and had little interest in retraining for any other work, prior to the operation. Dr Holly provides a witness statement to the effect that she was concerned that, had she warned Graham about the risk of incontinence, he would have suffered adverse psychological effects, given his fastidious attention to his appearance. Meanwhile, Dr Holly was devastated about the bad outcome for Graham. This had never happened to her before in her professional career. She decided to take temporary leave of absence from her work. She looks after her 4-year-old daughter Ilia. Dr Holly and her husband Jethro had had an acrimonious divorce and Jethro fought a long and unsuccessful battle for custody of Ilia during which he made various unsubstantiated allegations about Dr Holly’s attitude to Ilia. Jethro wrote to the Keto Social Services Department (‘Keto’) to allege (correctly) that Ilia had told an aunt that Dr Holly was being very unpleasant and was not cooking proper food for her. Because of Jethro’s previous behaviour, the social worker Lena did not believe him, did not investigate further, and told him that she was recommending that he be denied all contact with Ilia. Jethro was greatly distressed. During the following two months, Dr Holly’s neighbours made various reports to Keto that Ilia seemed to be in an unhappy and neglected state. A different social worker Maisie investigated and decided that Ilia should be removed from her home and placed in a council children’s care home for two months while Dr Holly received psychiatric care. At the end of the two months, Ilia was sent back to live with her mother. Maisie made no enquiries as to Dr Holly’s mental state at that time. After a few more weeks, Ilia was found to be in very great distress and had tried to harm herself. Plans were then put in place to take her permanently into care. Advise the parties as to any liabilities arising in Tort.