How can we help?

You can also find more resources in our Help Center.

31 terms

Tort: Professional/Clinical Negligence

STUDY
PLAY
R v Bateman
doctor-patient relationship; holds himself out as having special skill and knowledge; is consulted; owes a duty of care. No contractual relationship is necessary
Barnett v K&C HMC
duty arose once care was assumed / treatment undertaken;
Kapfunde v Abbey National
No doctor-patient relationship (paper-based opinion for insurance; no duty to prevent pure economic loss)
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service
no duty to advise partner, only patient
Wilsher v Essex AHA
duty to provide personnel of sufficient skill
Griffiths v Kent Ambulance Service
Duty to provide ambulance in reasonable time on call is taken
Bull v Devon AHA
'a staff reasonably sufficient for the foreseeable requirements of the patient' (risk of delay to baby known)
R v Cambridge AHA
deference to resources allocation decisions by HAs
Lillywhite v UCL Hospital NHS Trust
High focus procedure = higher standard/duty
Bolam v Friern HMC
standard is to act in a manner acceptable to a reasonable body of professional opinion
Maynard v West Midlands RHA
accepted the Bolam test and justified it with reference to complexity and discretion
Bolitho v Hackney & City HA
Bolam applies only where the standard is reasonable and the decision taken was logical in all the facts
Whitehouse v Jordan
error of judgement is ONLY negligent if it is in breach of a duty and standard owed - i.e. lack of care
de Freitas v O'Brien & Connolly
11/1000, or consensus amongst the 11 experts worldwide...
Roe v Ministry of Health
state of the art at the time of the act
Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital
knowledge held not to have sufficiently disseminated in 6 months from Lancet publication
CJD litigation
duty was owed to cease treatment 3 years beforehand; treatment was not life-crucial, consent and possible risks were negligently exchanged
Wilsher v Essex AHA
Lower duty is owed if acting under instruction from more senior personnel; but inexperience does not by itself constitute an excuse (L Browne-Wilk. dissenting)
Sidaway v Bethlehem Royal Hospital
duty to disclose only risks with both high probability and severity (back operation, 1% not enough, 10% would)
Chester v Afshar
Once asked there is an absolute duty of disclosure
Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust
Duty to disclose what a reasonable patient would consider material (if not emotionally affected)
Bull v Devon AHA
68 min delay before arrival of competent doc
Barnett v K&C HMC
death would have ensued irrespective of negligence (arsenic)
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
material contribution to overall risk when a disease cause is indivisiblel J&S L
barker v Corus
Fairchild but prop. award rel to material contribution to risk factor (indivisible injury, rival causes)
Bailey v MoD
award for negligence creating a weakness or susceptibility/risk of death
Chester v Afshar
Disclosure and causation: impossible to prove but for, policy imposes 'legal fiction' of certain/b.o.p. causation
Cassidy v MoH
Res Ipsa Loquitur (stiff fingers)
Scott v London & South Katherine's Docks
origin of res ipsa loquitur
Ratcliffe v Plymouth & Torbay HA
RIL did not apply - judge content to accept the evidence even if it leaves the damage unexplained
Gregg v Scott
No recovery for loss of a chance (had not yet died, alleged much reduced life expectancy) - policy argument