When one is establishing a business, it is important to understand the business law. Through the knowledge of business laws, is able to run the business without hindrances that may result from ignorance. Law brings numerous benefits in the business environment. For instance, law aids one to understand how different kinds of business entities are run (Latimer, 2012). Law helps one in understanding how each of the business operates, its structures as well as its legal requirements. Legal personnel also have quite the challenging job and responsibility to fight for truth and shed light on real facts. Law personnel also require skills on extensive research and must be dedicated in order to understand the significance of these aspects (Turner and Trone, 2013).In this case study, Darcy Hansen was a victim who sued Peninsula private hospital and Dr. Brett Marshall, who labored as obstetrician in same hospital. Mr. Henry Hansen, on behalf of his son Darcy Hansen, sued Peninsula private hospital authorities and the doctor for reportedly neglecting Darcy Hansen and causing health problems to him. As well as mental troubles to the entire family. Justice Anthony Cavanough acted as supreme personnel who look upon the case and was in charge of passing decision. Mr. Jack Rush offered defense from Dr. Marshall’s side. The incident in case first took place on March 10, 2000 when Mrs. Penny Hansen was administered to an excessive dose of the drug Sentocinon. The drug was meant to induce contractions and it happened to cause severe side effects on Darcy. Darcy suffered from a severe brain injury and he was born with cerebral palsy. Darcy thereafter needed around-the-clock care and remained on a wheelchair (Baskind, Osborne and Roach, 2013). According to the plaintiff, it is as a result of the hospital’s negligence that Darcy was not dependent and was highly likely not to live past the age of thirty years. His reduced life expectancy was an issue that was greatly disturbing for Darcy’s family. The family did believe that all the effects were due to irresponsible care given to Mrs. Hansen at the time of Darcy’s birth.Dr. Marshall in defence provided the fact that he was under the understanding that Mrs. Penny Hansen was in a completely normal labor position, as she was fully dilated and the heart rate of child was normal. According to Dr. Marshall, the overall the progress of his patient’s case appereared to be normal. Dr. Marshall and the hospital therefore did not admit fault of irresponsible behavior and they denied negligence and any liability, and they also did not accept the settlement terms. Mr. Wilson presented that it was clear that the child was not coping well with the labor process and there were problems in maintaining the child’s heart rate. Mr. Wilson also provided that Dr. Marshall maintained a very casual attitude towards the issue and the patient, Mrs. Hansen, and he also neglected any warnings about the child’s alarming high heart rate. Mr. Wilson added evidence showing that the doctor did diagnose the child through CTG machine which showed that the child and mother were both in a life-threatening condition (Harpwood, 2009). The doctor subsequently attempted to initiate a forced delivery, which led to Darcy being born in a poor condition, and soon after the doctor portrayed a casual attitude when he told Mrs. Hansen to take the child home. Mr. Rush however countered that that the problem occurred as a result of inappropriate nursing notes.The federal court provided that there was no dispute in the fact that the hospital authorities and the doctor neglected the patient and a decision was made against Dr. Marshall and the private hospital. The court explained that it was clear from the CTG report that the child was in critical condition and the doctor ought to have provided adequate attention on the case. From this evidence, the court therefore acted justly to give decision in the favor of Hansen family in accordance to the civil procedure act 2010 of the business law. The hospital was ordered to offer compensation to the Hansen family in monetary terms.The view on the outcome in this case, it is fair to say that the decision made by the federal court was a fair decision with the perspective of Hansen family. The evidence provided against the hospital and the doctor’s actions did provide that the staff neglected their duties and responsibilities according to state civil procedure act 2010 (Tribe & Korgaonkar, 1989). The act was breached by the accused parties which cause short life expectancy rate and most importantly, led to Darcy Hansen becoming utterly dependent on their family. The evidences related to the CTG report and warning from midwives and nurses attending to Mrs. Hansen indicated fault in Mr. Marshall conduct. The delivery pattern was also inappropriate and caused problems in the health of the mother and the child. The child’s heart beat was not properly examined by the doctor and the amount of the dosage of the medicine provided was inappropriate. Therefore the decision made was quite fair based on the legal jurisdictions and acts made by law (Kumarand & Steinebach, 2008).ConclusionWhile staying within the confines of an increasing array of business laws is necessary for success in business, it is not sufficient. Businesses must also recognize additional limitations and expectations placed upon them by business ethics, the values and principles that define that which is right and that which is wrong (Dobson, 2012). While ethical principles normally start with what is legal, they often impose a higher standard that recognizes a multitude of stakeholders beyond just suppliers, customers, and employees.