Tort XXV - Causation XI
White
v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998) is a follow on from Alcock v Chief
Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) and it is with regards to the Hillsborough
Football Stadium disaster. While in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
(1992) the claimants were the relatives of those who had died and spectators,
the claimants in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998) were the
police officers who were on duty at the stadium on the particular day.
The
case is complicated because the disaster is generally perceived to have
resulted from the negligence of the police and while there is a duty of care
which is similar to the duty of care in an employer-employee relationship we
have to take into account the fact that relatives of those who had died and
spectators were denied compensation because of the floodgates argument. The
chances are that the officers on duty did suffer from some form of psychiatric
illness, as did the spectators and the relatives of those who had lost their
lives in the disaster but to allow one party to claim and not the other would
be manifestly unjust.
Thompson
v Blake-James (1998) gives us another opportunity to examine the scope of duty
that is owed by doctors. The plaintiffs took their son to be immunized against
measles and the doctor advised against it because the child’s medical history
suggested that vaccination would be more harmful to him than it was to other
children. The child subsequently contracted measles that resulted in brain
damage.
Let
us examine the duty, breach and causation elements again. Under normal
circumstances a doctor would not be liable unless the negligent act was
strikingly and glaringly obvious see Mahon v Osborne (1939) and as long as
there is a school of medical thought that agrees with the way the patient was
treated, the court would be reluctant to impose any type of liability on the
doctor or medical practitioner see Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management
Committee (1957) and Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997).
If
it can be established at the onset that the doctor does not owe a duty of care
than there is no need to proceed with breach, causation and remoteness of
damage.
The
fact that the child’s medical history suggested to the doctor that immunization
may be more harmful to him than to other children may have been sufficient to
stop the courts from imposing any liability on the doctor. The plaintiffs were
unsuccessful.
This
is the second case we have come across where a child has been severely effect
by either the child or the parent not being immunized see McKay v Essex Area
Health Authority (1982) and it highlights the importance of children being
immunized against various diseases at the right age.
The
CDC (center for disease control) strongly recommends that all children get two
doses of MMR vaccines (Mums-Measles-Rubella), the first dose when the child is
between 12 – 15 months old and the second dose when the child is between 4 – 6
years old. Should these immunizations be made compulsory, if they haven’t
already been made so? Well, that is something that is best left to parliament
but it would be helpful if they were.
In
Watson v BBBC (1999) the case concerns a boxer who was injured. He was knocked
out during a bout and because there was no medical care provided at ringside
the plaintiff, the contestant who was knocked out, suffered serious injury.
Medical
evidence suggests that had the proper medical treatment been provided on time,
the injuries might not have been so severe and the delay in getting medical
treatment aggravated the injury.
We
have to keep in mind that the flexibility that is granted to doctors is not
granted to other medical professionals or services see Newman & others v
United Kingdom Medical Research Council (1996) and Wisniewski v Central
Manchester Health Authority (1998) and therefore a failure to provide adequate
medical services would most likely attract some type of liability.
The
courts held that the defendants. the boxing council owed a duty of care to
provide adequate medical services during their fights and therefore the
defendants were held to be liable.
It
is foreseeable that in all sanctioned fights there is a possibility that one of
the contestants may be knocked out, if fact that is how most boxers hope to win
their fights, by knock-outs, and it is further foreseeable that these
knock-outs may result in some form of injury, some more serious than others and
it is only reasonable to expect the organizers to have medical services on hand
and an ambulance on standby.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment