Professional Negligence Flashcards
General
Hard to figure out whether it’s a breach of duty, and whether the individual was negligent. Establish whether it is a matter of fact, or more judgement
Whitehouse v Jordan
Child born with severe brain damage, blamed doctor for excessive force. Obvious there is a duty of care, but how do you decide if it’s breached? Multiple questioned asked, too much force? Did he attempt a normal delivery?
Lord Fraser ‘An error of judgement, may, or may not be negligence depending on the nature of error’
Standard?
Ordinary Professional individual, higher than reasonable person as it is assumed they have a certain knowledge about the area. Set the standards for themselves though which is an issue. Wilsher v Essex Health Authority
Hunter v Hanley
Needle snapped, and doctor apparently doing it in a different motion. 3 part test:
1) Usual and normal practice
2) Not adopted that practice
3) Practice the doctor adopted is one which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care
Cases:
Gordan v Wilson - Tumour, GP neglect, yet some said they would others say they wouldn’t refer, suggests all you need is another DR who agrees with your method
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority - Two opposing bodies, even if went didn’t matter
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management - Needs to be a responsible body of medical men
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board - Didn’t offer C section so negligent
Sidaway v Bethel Royal Hospital - Patient knows best now stance in UK
Negligence in other professions
Caparo - Account, White v Jones - Lawyers
Hawthorne and Hawthorne v Anderson - Two different witnesses two different opinions
Wright v Paton Farrell - Lawyer forgot huge alibi for the individual, but lawyers are protected due to not wanting them to worry about being sued all the time. Only in Scotland, English don’t have immunity
Why the English Lawyers do not have immunity?
Osman v UK - A man is threatening someone and the police know and then injures boy. Court said they aren’t liable relied on Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (Murder case, police can’t protect one victim then leads to defensive policing) Then went to Hague who said it was against Art 6 as person being denied a civil right of action
Z v UK - Misunderstood UK law less immunity. Saying no duty of care, so there is no compensation
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police - Strong along these leads, owe no duty of care
Then back to Wright, Lord Hamilton says duty of care is owed to client but there is a immunity as public interest overrides the individual interest so no compensation
