Without knowledge of the specifics of case in question it is virtually impossible to offer any specific suggestons - and - this site should not be relied upon for legal advice.
Manslaughter is not always illegal... if you have a statutory defence available. This, however is becoming increasingly rare. Manslaughter is a less culpable offence to murder. It suggests that there were circumstances that mitigate the wrong that has been done, yet there is still a punishment warranted. The only time that any form of homicide (including murder and manslaughter) is not punishable is when a legitimate legal or 'statutory' defence is available to the defendant which is successfully pursued. Manslaughter can occur through either Criminal Negligence, or through a dangerous and unlawful act. It is very complex but this is the simplest answer. The act causing death MUST BE voluntary, that is that the defendant had minimal level of control over bodily movements (as found in the case of DPP v Ryan). If it is involuntary - the defendant will be acquitted.
I am not a lawyer, but in a recent discussion with my attourney she stated that the difference between simple and gross negligence was that "simple" was unintensional, showed no intent. "Gross" basically equates to showing more intent or flat out stupidity.
In a negligence case, the four elements that must be proven are: duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty of care, causation (the breach caused harm to the plaintiff), and damages (the plaintiff suffered harm or loss).
Regardless of the situation the person(s) who bring the lawsuit (plaintiff(s)) are the ones who have to prove their case. (In the instance cited by the question that would be the patient.).
The plaintiff - their legal representative outlines the case for the prosecution. It's then up to the defence barrister to answer the allegations on behalf of the defendant.
It can vary, depending upon the type of case but as a general rule it boils down to the defendant(s) exercising "due diligence."
Yes, the respondent is the defendant in a legal case.
"Judgment for Defendant" means that the defendant wins the case. In a criminal case, a judgment for defendant would be a "not guilty" verdict (usually). In a civil case, it would usually mean that the defendant does not have to pay money to the person who sued him or her (known as the "plaintiff").
Contributory negligence in a civil case is a familiar term used in many vehicle accident cases. Who is at fault plays a major role in contributory negligence during a civil case.
The defendant of the case would Jones.
The defendant of the case would Jones.
In a civil case involving negligence, the plaintiff must provide evidence to prove four key elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. This includes showing that the defendant owed a duty to act reasonably, failed to meet that duty, directly caused harm to the plaintiff, and resulted in measurable damages.