Breach of DOC in Negligence Flashcards
Wilsher v Essex
The general standard of care is reasonable care= you assess D’s actions/omissions across the timeline of events and see if each falls below the “reasonable” standard
- W was born premature and needed a lot of oxygen
- A catheter was accidentally put into a vein instead of an artery so W was over saturated with oxygen and became blind
- Held: Breach
- even though the rest of the treatment was exemplary this was a failure that breached the standard
Lillywhite v UCL Hospitals
The standard of care is raised for specialists
- An ultrasound specialist missed a disability
- the standard of care was held to be much higher because of his speciality and therefore he had breached
Shakoor v Situ
The standard of care for individuals in alternative medicine is the standard of care of a reasonable person in their field
- Orthodoxy medicine recommended surgery to remove fatty tissue lumps
- Herbal medicine was given which cased D’s liver to turn necrotic and he died
- Held: No breach; he had met the standard of a reasonable person in his profession
Mullin v Richards
The standard of care for Age will be assessed based on the standard of an ordinary and prudent and reasonable person of the D’s own age
- two 15 year olds were playing around and one accidentally lost an eye
- Held: No Breach because she had acted as a reasonable 15 year old would
Woolridge v Sumner
In regards to dangerous sports or activities: the test is “Reckless regard for safety”
- Horse race photographer was to close to the barrier and was told to move and he didn’t
- Horse collided with him and injured him
- No reckless regard for his safety was found and therefore no DOC
- spectators/participants usually accept the risk of voluntarily attending
Bolton v Stone
Balancing the 4 quadrant test for precautions to meet the standard of legal reasonable care
- Lived near a cricket ground and a ball struck her house
- There was already a 7 foot tall fence around the club
- Court held that the cost of putting up higher fences was too much and the utility was not worth it ; No Breach
Paris v Stepney
Balancing the 4 quadrant test for precautions to meet the standard of legal reasonable care
- He lost an eye during WWII
- he was working as a mechanic when a piece of metal flew off and blinded his good eye
- Held; A DOC was owed and was breached
- goggles were a cheap and easy solution and considering the gravity of his injury was so high there was breach established
Watt v Hertfordshire
Balancing the 4 quadrant test for precautions to meet the standard of legal reasonable care; social/economic utility a big consideration
- Fire truck put a car lift int he cabin and it crushed one of the fire fighters legs
- because of the social utility of saving lives it outweighed for precautions and so a breach was not found
Bolitho v City of Hackney
A provision which modifies the Bolam test
- it extends the Bolam test to other professionals
- It allows the judge to consider if the body of opinion is reasonable
Adams v Rhymney
The Bolam test can be applied outsider the professional context as well
- window locks were key operated and installed
- there was a child and the children couldn’t escape and died
- Held No Breach: a responsible body of opinion agreed that key operated was the safest
Roe v Ministry of Health
Medical negligence cannot be judged by hindsight; must look at knowledge at the time of breach
