Mental illness, personal safety

Re: Mental illness, personal safety

J G Wray — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:10:40 GMT

[quote user="Neal Palk"]To be clear- none of this is relevant in the legal sense as far as I know (except motoring!) but is just an example![/quote]

Thank you. Now let's see if we can get RCVS into the business of defining a method.

JGW

Re: Mental illness, personal safety

Neal Palk — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:39:11 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

......By the way what determines the "reasonableness test"?

[/quote]

That depends on the circumstances. Generally speaking it would be the 'regulatory body' so (for example) an Employment Tribunal for employment matters, the HSE/Local Authority for H&S issues, the FSA for financial. In this example I would assume it's an H&S issue, but it's highly likely if there was any come-back from a decision taken or not taken, the lawyers would have a field day debating the reasonableness test in whatever circumstances it arose......

Sorry - there is no legal definition that is universally used/accepted. This definition is (in my opinion) a good one but is derived from the 1988 Road Traffic Act - not relevant here, but a decent attempt to describe 'Careless' driving which draws a link with a 'reasonable, prudent & competent...'. This is often interpreted in the context of the rather dated 'man on the Clapham omnibus' expression - i.e the standard expected from a 'typical person' (my words!).

A defendant will have driven 'without due care and attention' if his driving has departed from the standard of care and skill that would, in the circumstances of the case, have been exercised by a reasonable, prudent and competent driver.

To be clear- none of this is relevant in the legal sense as far as I know (except motoring!) but is just an example!

Re: Mental illness, personal safety

J G Wray — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:59:10 GMT

[quote user="Neal Palk"]Rightly or wrongly the wellbeing of your staff and clients is prime above any care for an animal.[/quote]

The problem for us vets is that we cannot be sure that is how RCVS will see it and we're playing with our livelihood here. Nothing RCVS is saying, because they come from a position of minimal credibility, inspires confidence. It's all a bit vague and nebulous.

[quote user="Neal Palk"]It doesn't require any training or assumed knowledge, but applying the well-used 'reasonableness test' the question would be whether a reasonable person could foresee a risk to others and acted accordingly? Answer = yes.[/quote]

There you are you see, society accpets there should be a formula a test to decide something. RCVS doesn't.

By the way what determines the "reasonableness test"?

JGW

Re: Mental illness, personal safety

Neal Palk — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:13:59 GMT

I'm maybe answering this in a slightly oblique way to how it was asked but..........

I only have the Basingstoke Gazette article to go on - but assuming you're not a one-man band, your duty of care to your employees and members of the public trumps hands-down any/everything the RCVS lays down in my view (and indeed the latter should be based upon the former in such cases anyway). Rightly or wrongly the wellbeing of your staff and clients is prime above any care for an animal. Clearly it's seldom black & white but if the individual was known to be a risk to others, she could have legitimately been turned away by you and any subsequent repercussions from the RCVS would have come-up short. It doesn't require any training or assumed knowledge, but applying the well-used 'reasonableness test' the question would be whether a reasonable person could foresee a risk to others and acted accordingly? Answer = yes.

Of course anything based solely on a newspaper story (not the case here) is much less solid..........