Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. In it, the House of Lords decided that when a doctor fails to inform a patient of the risks of surgery, it is not necessary to show that the failure to inform caused the harm incurred.
The casualty officer, Dr. Banerjee, did not see them. He advised the nurse, over the phone, that they should go home and call their own doctors. One of them, Mr. Barnett, died about five hours later from arsenic poisoning. [2] [1] Mrs. Barnett sued the hospital for negligence. [2]
Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1996] 4 All ER 771 is an important English tort law case, on the standard of care required by medical specialists. It follows the Bolam test for professional negligence, and addresses the interaction with the concept of causation.
Alternative, a New Trial, Because Mr. Pledger Failed to Prove Causation. 16. A plaintiff must prove both medical (factual) causation and warnings (proximate) causation to establish a prima facie case of a negligent failure-to-warn claim. See, e.g., Tidwell v. Upjohn Co., 626 So. 2d 1297, 1300 (Ala. 1993) (recognizing that to establish medical
84. Academic writers have suggested that in cases of clinical negligence, the need to prove causation is too restrictive of liability. This argument has appealed to judges in some jurisdictions; in some, but not all, of the States of the United States and most recently in New South Wales and Ireland: Rufo v Hosking (1 November 2004) [2004] NSWCA 391); Philp v Ryan (17 December 2004) [2004] 1 ...
The claimant sought damages from the health board for negligence on the part of the doctor for failing to advise her on the risk of shoulder dystocia. The Court of Session ruled that there was no negligence based on the Hunter v Hanley test and that there was no causation since the claimant would not have submitted to a caesarean birth even if ...
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 2 All ER 909 is an English tort law case, about the nature of causation. [1] It rejects the idea that people can sue doctors for the loss of a chance to get better, when doctors fail to do as good a job as they could have done.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a ...