Now, this makes for an interesting torts case. Andy Lees, 72, was toward that he was dying with little time left by St. Johns’s Hospital. The Scottish man proceeded to give away all that he owned to friends and relatives — except for money spent on the funeral. Then he not only failed to die of cancer, but it turns out that he does not have lung cancer at all.
It turns out that Lees has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is not terminal. Now, however, he is broke.
The usual misdiagnosis case involves the failure to identify cancer, which then grows to the point of no return or dramatically reduces the chances of survival. There is obvious negligence. The question will be the foreseeability of the damages. This is not the most common response to such news. However, it is directly linked to the act of negligence.
Alternative headline: “Scottish man prematurely attempts to avoid estate tax.”
(kidding)
This is a sad case. I would hope that the donees of his fortune would be willing to return the funds or at least a portion of the funds. I am not holding my breath on that possibility. It will be interesting to see how the negligence issue plays out. I would not think that it is out of the realm of forseeability that a good man would give away his fortune on news of having terminal cancer. Would his reaction be the norm… no.