Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 4282: A night watchman attended the casualty department of a hospital with claims of vomiting and stomach pains. The doctor failed to examine him but instructed one of the nurses to send him to his GP. In the event, he died of arsenic poisoning. It was accepted that the doctor had been negligent; the question for the court was whether this negligence actually caused the death. Utilising the ‘but for’ test the court held [...]. The man would have died anyway, regardless of any examination by the doctor. Unfortunately, the patient had arrived at the hospital too late for any antidote to take effect. The defendant was, therefore, not liable (despite the hospital admitting the existence of a duty and that such a duty had been breached by the doctor).
Answer
it had not
Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 4282: A night watchman attended the casualty department of a hospital with claims of vomiting and stomach pains. The doctor failed to examine him but instructed one of the nurses to send him to his GP. In the event, he died of arsenic poisoning. It was accepted that the doctor had been negligent; the question for the court was whether this negligence actually caused the death. Utilising the ‘but for’ test the court held [...]. The man would have died anyway, regardless of any examination by the doctor. Unfortunately, the patient had arrived at the hospital too late for any antidote to take effect. The defendant was, therefore, not liable (despite the hospital admitting the existence of a duty and that such a duty had been breached by the doctor).
Answer
?
Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 4282: A night watchman attended the casualty department of a hospital with claims of vomiting and stomach pains. The doctor failed to examine him but instructed one of the nurses to send him to his GP. In the event, he died of arsenic poisoning. It was accepted that the doctor had been negligent; the question for the court was whether this negligence actually caused the death. Utilising the ‘but for’ test the court held [...]. The man would have died anyway, regardless of any examination by the doctor. Unfortunately, the patient had arrived at the hospital too late for any antidote to take effect. The defendant was, therefore, not liable (despite the hospital admitting the existence of a duty and that such a duty had been breached by the doctor).
Answer
it had not
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it send him to his GP. In the event, he died of arsenic poisoning. It was accepted that the doctor had been negligent; the question for the court was whether this negligence actually caused the death. Utilising the ‘but for’ test the court held <span>it had not. The man would have died anyway, regardless of any examination by the doctor. Unfortunately, the patient had arrived at the hospital too late for any antidote to take effect. The defend
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.