Tort 12 - Breach of Duty of Care 4
In Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988) a
premature baby was given too much oxygen by a junior doctor and as a result the
baby suffered from a condition which affected his retina and rendered him
blind. The parents sued and the court held that a junior doctor is under the
same duty as any other competent doctor and found for the parents.
In Newman & Others v
United Kingdom Medical Research Council (1996) almost 2,000 children who
suffered from growth disorders were treated with human growth hormones and as a
result many of them died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), a rare,
degenerative, invariably fatal brain disorder, which affects about 1 in a
million worldwide. The researchers were held to be liable and experiments
should have ceased or stopped the moment the researchers realized that the
treatment was fatal.
In Mansfield v Weetabix
(1997) the defendant crashed his lorry into the plaintiff’s shop and the
plaintiff sued for the resulting damage. The defendant though unknown to him at
the time suffered from pancreatic tumor which resulted in hypoglycemia. It was
held that the standard that was imposed on the defendant was that of the
ordinary and competent driver and it was found that the defendant had complied
with the standard and therefore he was not liable. To do otherwise would be to
impose strict liability.
In Bolitho v City
& Hackney Health Authority (1997) a 2-year-old child was admitted for
serious brain damage and at the time of admission the hospital staff in
attendance paged the doctor but because her pager was faulty the doctor was
unable to attend to the child and the child died as a result of respiratory
failure.
The mother brought an
action in negligence against the hospital contending that, had the child been
intubated the child would have survived. The doctor argued that even if she had
attended to the case she would not have had the child intubated and her
decision was supported by other doctors. The court in line with the decision in
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957) found in favor of
the doctor in that as long as there is a professional school of thought that
concurs or agrees with the treatment that was administered then the courts
would not impose any liability on the doctor.
Under most circumstances
or in most instances it is difficult to succeed in a negligence claim against a
medical practitioner or a doctor or a surgeon unless the negligent act was
glaringly or blatantly obvious like in the case of Mahon v Osborne (1939)
because in the interest of public policy doctors are allowed to take a certain
amount of risk and as long as the risk is justifiable they won’t be held
liable.
The flexibility granted
to medical professionals however does not extend to nurses or researchers.
In Wisniewski v Central
Manchester Health Authority (1998) the defendant a midwife failed to show the
doctor the results of a scan that indicated that the child the mother was
carrying had some complications and as a result the child was born with
cerebral palsy. The defendant was held to be liable.
Copyright © 2019 by
Dyarne Ward and Kathiresan Ramachanderam
Comments
Post a Comment