When everyone was scared of Corona virus the tragic story of Dhaka’s elite hospital frightened us even more. The fire broke out at the United Hospital on Wed, May 27, 2020. The fire service brought the fire under control after trying 30 minutes. Five patients of United Hospital who were in Corona unit died by that incident, everyone was in ICU beds. The hospital authority asserted, ‘they were in life support’. The test results of three out of the five were corona negatives. The adjacent fire extinguishers of Corona unit were out dated (‘The Daily Star’ on May 27, 2020). The doctors and health workers (on duty) did not come forward to rescue the patients. The result of that incident is the loss of five innocent lives.
In Tort Law, who endures misfortune brought by another ‘negligence’ he might have the option to sue for getting compensation for physical injury, psychological pressure, harm of property, economical loss etc. To establish ‘negligence’ in Tort Law the victim has to set up four components i.e. 1. Duty of Care 2. Breach of duty 3. Causation 4. Damages.
Doctors and health workers of that hospital were on duty to look after the patients but no one was present at the time of that incidents. Additionally in that unit, there were additional flammable substances that caused the fire. Their fire extinguisher was also outdated. There was an impression of mismanagement between the corona unit and hospital authorities. There was 25 minutes delay in calling the fire service. It is totally a breach of duty. For violating their duty of care the victim’s family member can claim compensation under Tort Law. Donoghue v. Stevenson is the established case of negligence in Tort Law. In 1928, Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer purchased for her. But in bottle she discovered a decomposing snail. Later, she was ill and the bottle was made of clear glass. Donoghue subsequently took legal action against Mr. David Stevenson who was the manufacturer of the ginger beer on the ground of negligence and she claimed damages. Similarly here were signs of negligence among the United Hospital authorities. According to the news of ‘Bangla Tribune’ on May 28, 2020 the Mayor of Dhaka North City Corporation Atiqul Islam had said that, ’11 fire extinguisher which were in isolation unit had outdated a month ago’ The unit contained excessive levels of combustible material and the fire extinguisher was out of date. The Fire Service Commission thinks that the fire started from that combustible substance. Seeing the signs of such irresponsibility in a unit like Corona, it is clear that they have neglected their responsibilities. (‘Bangla Tribune’ on May 28, 2020).
In Tort Law, strict liability is a legal term referring to the holding of an individual or entity liable for damages or losses, without having to prove carefulness or mistake. Such a claim relies not on wrongdoing, but on the inherent hazards of the situation or product. In the case of Rayland v. Fletcher (1868) UKHL 1 defendant had a water tank. Due to overflow the water it caused damage to the plaintiff. Whether there was negligence or duty was not taken in the account, defendant was strictly liable. In another case, William B. Greeman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc (1963), 59 Cal.2d 57, Freeman used a power tool which was manufactured by Yuba Power products. While using it plaintiff was causing serious injury. Greeman made a suit for breach of express warranty and he said that the design of the defendant was defective. For this reason he was strictly liable. By following the case of Rayland v. Fletcher, the defendant was liable for his irresponsibility. Hospital Authorities are also responsible for same reason. In the United Hospital, the corona unit was at risk and there is doubt about their readiness to provide Corona medical services. As the unit there had some additional flammable substances that served to ignite the fire. Hospital authority should be responsible for keeping hazards substances near that unit. It was inappropriate to keep highly combustible materials in such an important unit.
Normally a person is liable for this own act but there are some special grounds where a person is liable for the act of other person which he had no direct connection to that incident. In Tort such liability is called vicarious liability. Vicarious liability can arise in three ways .i.e. liability by Ratification, liability by Relationship, liability by Abetment.
In Bangladesh there is an established case, titled ‘Catherine Masud and Ors. v. Md. Kashed Mia and Ors. 70 DLR. In this case Tareq Masud along with 9 others was returning from Manikganj to Dhaka in a microbus. On the Dhaka-Aricha highway a collusion took place between microbus and ‘Chuadanga Deluxe Paribahan’. As a result of accident, five passengers died on a spot. Various issues were taken into consideration in that case. Roughly drive, expired license of the car, compensation for irreparable loss to the family of Tareq Masud etc, the driver and with helper were liable for the accident. Not only the driver and helper but also the owners of the bus company were also vicariously libeled because of their master servant relationship between driver and the owner. In Tort Law, if anyone works for someone it is presumed that the person is doing the work for himself.
In another example of vicarious liability is, ‘Bangladesh Beverage Industries Ltd v. Rowsan Akhter (69 DLR 129). Mozammel Hossain Montu who was a journalist, news reporter, broadcaster and a poet. While he was crossing the road after having purchased one packet cigarettes on December 3, 1989 and from the wrong side a car hit Mr. Montu and fled away. He was taken to hospital but could not be rescued. Mr.Montu was approximately 44 years and he had two minor sons, wife, brother, sister. In this case two Tort Law principles were reflected, one is “master- servant relationship” between driver and the Company and another is,` Nam qui facit per alium facit per se’ it means “an act through another is deemed in law to do himself”. Although the accident happened by the driver. Bangladesh Beverage Company is also vicariously liable. Some issues considered by the judges, i.e. Loss of potential learning, Deprived of father’s affection, care, Loss of post retirement earning, Loss of father’s will, Damage for premature death.
By following this issues judges fixed up 2 (Two) crore taka as a compensation for the family of Montu Mia. Mainly servant acts on behalf of master. In this respect, the Hospital authority will also vicariously liable. The negligence of the health workers have been noticed in the United Hospital, additionally negligence of hospital authority has also become more visible. Therefore, the hospital authority is liable for negligence, strict liability, and vicarious liability. This is mention worthy here that, there is an established maxim in Tort Law, ‘Ubi Jus Ibe remedium’ which means `where there is right there is a remedy`. The victims of the incident had legal rights; the hospital authority violated their rights. Hence, the victims (or their family) have a right to get compensation from the hospital authority.
According to Dhaka Tribune, 1st June, 2020, writ petition has been already filed in the High Court seeking judicial inquiry into the death of five people in a fire at the United Hospital in the capital. Compensation has also been sought for the family of the deceased. Here, the victim’s family can also file a suit under Tort Law to seek compensation. In this situation, Tort Law is more appropriate solution.
(Shahriar Shovon is a student of Department of Law and Human Rights, University of Asia Pacific).
