Common practice in the context of professional negligence Flashcards
What is the main principle established in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)?
A) A professional is always liable if harm occurs
B) A professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals
C) A professional must follow the majority opinion in their field
D) A professional is only liable if their actions result in direct financial loss to the claimant
B) A professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals
🔹 Explanation:
The Bolam Test provides that if a responsible body of professional opinion supports the defendant’s actions, they are not negligent. It does not require adherence to the majority view, only a responsible one.
Which of the following statements about the Bolitho case is correct?
A) The court must always follow professional opinion
B) The court can reject professional opinion if it does not withstand logical analysis
C) A professional is liable if a single expert disagrees with their practice
D) The Bolitho case overruled the Bolam test
B) The court can reject professional opinion if it does not withstand logical analysis
🔹 Explanation:
In Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997), the court ruled that a professional body’s opinion must be logical and reasonable. If it is not, the court can still find a professional negligent, even if their actions were supported by a professional body.
What is the significance of De Freitas v O’Brien and Connolly (1995)?
A) A professional must follow the majority opinion in their field
B) A professional’s decision is only valid if supported by more than 50% of experts
C) Even a small number of experts can constitute a responsible body of opinion
D) Professionals cannot be found liable if their actions follow traditional practices
C) Even a small number of experts can constitute a responsible body of opinion
🔹 Explanation:
In De Freitas, the court confirmed that a responsible body of opinion does not have to be the majority opinion. A minority group of well-qualified professionals may still support a defendant’s actions.
A surgeon decides to use a new, minimally invasive technique during an operation. The technique is supported by 15% of specialists but not the majority. The patient suffers complications. Is the surgeon negligent?
A) Yes, because the majority of specialists do not support the technique
B) No, because a responsible body of professional opinion supports the surgeon’s decision
C) Yes, because using new techniques automatically carries a higher duty of care
D) No, because complications are an accepted risk in surgery
B) No, because a responsible body of professional opinion supports the surgeon’s decision
🔹 Explanation:
According to De Freitas v O’Brien and Connolly (1995), a small but responsible body of expert opinion is sufficient to defend against a claim of negligence.
A financial advisor gives investment advice that aligns with industry standards at the time but later turns out to be poor due to unforeseen market conditions. Is the advisor liable?
A) Yes, because their advice resulted in financial loss
B) No, because liability depends on whether they acted reasonably based on knowledge at the time
C) Yes, because a professional should always guarantee positive outcomes
D) No, because financial advisors are never liable for market downturns
B) No, because liability depends on whether they acted reasonably based on knowledge at the time
🔹 Explanation:
Negligence in professional practice is assessed based on knowledge at the time (state of the art defence). The advisor would not be negligent if they followed accepted standards at the time (Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital).
Which of the following is NOT a valid defence for a professional accused of negligence?
A) Their actions were supported by a responsible body of professional opinion
B) Their actions followed common practice, even if that practice was later found to be unsafe
C) Their actions were in line with mainstream industry literature at the time
D) Their actions complied with the latest developments in their profession
B) Their actions followed common practice, even if that practice was later found to be unsafe
🔹 Explanation:
In Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, common practice is not automatically a defence—it must be logically defensible. If common practice is later found to be inherently unsafe, it may not protect the defendant.
What key legal principle was established in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015)?
A) The Bolam Test applies in all medical negligence cases
B) Doctors must warn patients of all possible risks, no matter how small
C) Doctors must inform patients of material risks and reasonable alternative treatments
D) Patients cannot claim negligence if a risk was unforeseeable
C) Doctors must inform patients of material risks and reasonable alternative treatments
🔹 Explanation:
In Montgomery, the court ruled that doctors have a duty to ensure patients are aware of material risks. The Bolam test does not apply when determining whether a doctor has breached their duty by failing to inform a patient of risks.
A law firm routinely advises clients based on a well-accepted interpretation of tax law. A court later rules that the interpretation was incorrect, leading to significant tax penalties for a client. Is the law firm liable for negligence?
A) No, because the interpretation was in line with industry standards at the time
B) Yes, because the client suffered financial loss
C) No, because legal professionals are never liable for changing legal interpretations
D) Yes, because professionals must always anticipate future legal changes
A) No, because the interpretation was in line with industry standards at the time
🔹 Explanation:
A professional will not be found negligent for following accepted practice at the time, even if it is later shown to be incorrect (state of the art defence from Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital).
A dentist uses a treatment that was considered best practice at the time. Two years later, research reveals the treatment carries severe risks. A patient treated during that period sues. Will the dentist be liable?
A) No, because they followed the accepted medical knowledge at the time
B) Yes, because the treatment was later found to be harmful
C) No, because dentists have no duty of care once a procedure is completed
D) Yes, because professionals should anticipate potential future risks
A) No, because they followed the accepted medical knowledge at the time
🔹 Explanation:
The state of the art defence applies—a professional cannot be liable for failing to follow medical knowledge that did not exist at the time (Gascoine v Sheridan).
A patient is diagnosed with a rare but serious disease. There are two possible treatments: one is experimental with a high success rate, but unknown risks. The other is traditional with a lower success rate but fewer risks. The doctor chooses the traditional method without discussing the experimental option. Is the doctor liable?
A) Yes, if a reasonable patient would have wanted to know about the experimental option
B) No, because the doctor followed accepted medical practice
C) No, because doctors are not required to discuss all treatment options
D) Yes, because doctors must always offer the most successful treatment
A) Yes, if a reasonable patient would have wanted to know about the experimental option
🔹 Explanation:
Under Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) and McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board (2023), doctors must inform patients of reasonable alternative treatments. Failure to do so could be a breach of duty.
