"you just have to get past the bombastic technical jargons to understand law." -prof johan-

tort = latin: twisted; literally: wrong.

in malaysia, tort is a civil (anything that's not criminal) law that is built on case law rather than statutes (Acts etc).

as such, we study a LOT of cases for tort.


1. definition of 'property' in the tort of conversion of property.

if you get into an accident, and somehow your leg is separated from the rest of your body, is your leg your property? (the way your house, dog, cat are your property)

case

A (we always use letters to represent a person. judges are lazy people.) died. A's parents allowed the doctor to use her brain for dunno what already la. Then the parents wanted the brain back. Unfortunately, the doctor had lost the brain. Somehow (prof nor: "sometimes these cases are not funny, but when you read them, you don't know what to do but laugh."). The parents sued for conversion (conversion = assuming the original owner's right of the property to such an extent that the owner cannot use the thingy anymore) of the brain. First issue was whether the brain was a 'property'. Second issue was whose property the brain was anyway. (i.e. did the brain belong to the parents? the dead girl can't really sue.)


2. duty of care a.k.a. duty to take care and standard of care

how much care is a person supposed to take in order to avoid harming 'his neighbour'? (the fella that will kena if the person doesn't take care)

case

Seorang pakar mendaki gunung membawa serombongan orang memanjat gunung. Dia tak guna tali; pakai tali rafia je, sebab nak jimat. Itu saja persediaannya. Sebelum memanjat gunung, dia berkata, "Pray, all of you. Whatever your faith, just pray."

did the mountain climber fulfill the standard of care he must employ in his duty towards the group? (see, the answer so obvious wan)


3. liability of doctors towards patients in giving advice.

can the doctor be liable if he does not inform the patient of a very minimal risk?

case

The plaintiff patient had a bad eye and needed an operation to cure it. During the operation, the patient caught a strange disease called Sympathetic Ophthalmia - the patient's good eye felt sorry for the bad eye and turned bad as well. To make it worse, the patient's bad eye turned worse. (good thing the sympathetic eye wasn't that sympathetic) The doctor had known of the risk of this happening, but had not told the patient about it because the probability of it happening was 1 in 14000.

can the doctor be held liable? this is one of those subjective thingys you must exercise your own conviction and conscience to answer. plus the judge may disagree with you. oh well.


see? law isn't that difficult to understand.

there are even some very thought-provoking cases. like in the conjoined-baby-twins case, where the court had to decide between allowing the hospital to kill the 'parasite' twin who was using up the other's nutrients, or to just let both of them eventually die. we asked prof nor what happened to the twins, and she answered that she had not continued to follow the case after her first reading of it, but...

it is our deepest hope that they both survived.

we learned of another case, briefly cited as Foo Fio Na, where a 47-year-old woman's claim for negligence on the part of the doctor was finally allowed. She had been injured in an accident, and sought treatment in the hospital. she was operated upon and became partially paralyzed. the doctor told her it was a common result of the operation. after two weeks, she was still paralyzed. one day, she was suddenly wheeled into the operating room and operated upon without her consent or knowledge. when she woke up, she was entirely paralyzed.

we say justice was done. but we forget.

the woman was 24 years old when she first laid claim for negligence.

there was another case elsewhere, which name escapes me. like Foo Fio Na; the girl waited years for her appeal to be allowed. it was almost similiar, except the girl went blind in both eyes.

shall we be proud to be professing the law?

perhaps for the lawyer who took her case, and for the judge who allowed her appeal.

but for those who know the judiciary system, justice is delayed. and i don't know if justice delayed 24 years can still be called justice. how does it feel to win the case but still lose your eyes?


it's things like these that makes the study of law interesting for me.

so...

don't tell me law is boring or i'll poke you in the eye. hah! (i'm not gonna write about how you may sue me for that)