Goal oriented thought process is the flow of ideas, symbols and associations initiated by a problem or task and leading toward a reality-oriented conclusion in logical sequence. Although it is unrealistic to routinely perform a comprehensive mental status examination (MSE) in a single primary care office visit, incorporating key components of a formal MSE when the physician senses that something is “not quite right” with the patient can help the physician identify psychiatric illnesses, follow up as needed for more extensive evaluation, and make referrals when necessary. The examination can also help distinguish mood disorders, thought disorders, and cognitive impairment.
Another claim that could arise is between Geoff and Beth. As Beth is the reason why Geoff hit Paul, he can sue Beth, so he doesn’t have to pay for the injuries that he caused because it wasn’t entirely his fault. However, as in Perl v Camden LBC , it was Geoff who could’ve avoided hitting Paul if he paid attention to the road. Beth could argue that if Geoff wasn’t distracted by the CD, he would have acknowledged her earlier, meaning he would have not had to swerve sharply, preventing not only collision with Beth but also Paul. Therefore, by looking at these facts and the defence argument, it would be likely that this claim would not be successful. There are three main legal issues that must be met when looking at a negligence claim. Firstly, has the claimant suffered any damage or loss? In this case, no, there was no damage or loss that Geoff suffered. Secondly, is there a duty of care? In this case yes, as Beth was a road user, she had duty of care towards Geoff. And lastly, has the duty of care been breached? In this case, yes, the duty of care has been breached as Beth was driving recklessly and she was the reason that Geoff collided with Paul, however, as not all three legal issues, with the suffer of damage or loss has been met, there cannot be a claim, unless Geoff proves that he has suffered loss due to Beth’s actions.
In conclusion, by looking at the three different potential claims and the defence arguments that can arise, it can be seen that only one out of the three claims could actually be carried out as there is a requirement to prove loss, injury or damage in order for the claim to be able to be proceeded and only Paul can prove the damages that occurred when he was hit by Geoff. It can also be seen that Geoff is the one to be blamed for Paul’s injuries as he wasn’t paying attention to the road, meaning that as a road user, who has duty of care to other road users, Geoff put himself and others in danger due to his actions. Beth can’t be sued by Paul or Geoff as she did not cause direct damage to any of the potential claimants. Therefore, there is only one of the potential claims that can arise after the road traffic accident between Paul and Geoff, as only the Paul v Geoff case has met all of the three legal issues that need to be met when looking at a negligence claim
