Roe v Minister Of Health [1954] 2 QB 66. Here the claimant suffered permanent paralysis from the waist down having been injected with a spinal anaesthetic called nupercaine. The nupercaine was traditionally stored in glass ampoules. The ampoules were kept in a phenol solution in order to keep them disinfected. Unknown to anyone, minute invisible cracks had formed in the ampoules, which had allowed the phenol to contaminate the nupercaine. Although this evidence was professionally doubted, it was accepted at trial. It was held that the defendants could not have guarded against such an event happening on the basis that it was unforeseeable and, therefore, [...].
Answer
they escaped liability for negligence
Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Roe v Minister Of Health [1954] 2 QB 66. Here the claimant suffered permanent paralysis from the waist down having been injected with a spinal anaesthetic called nupercaine. The nupercaine was traditionally stored in glass ampoules. The ampoules were kept in a phenol solution in order to keep them disinfected. Unknown to anyone, minute invisible cracks had formed in the ampoules, which had allowed the phenol to contaminate the nupercaine. Although this evidence was professionally doubted, it was accepted at trial. It was held that the defendants could not have guarded against such an event happening on the basis that it was unforeseeable and, therefore, [...].
Answer
?
Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Roe v Minister Of Health [1954] 2 QB 66. Here the claimant suffered permanent paralysis from the waist down having been injected with a spinal anaesthetic called nupercaine. The nupercaine was traditionally stored in glass ampoules. The ampoules were kept in a phenol solution in order to keep them disinfected. Unknown to anyone, minute invisible cracks had formed in the ampoules, which had allowed the phenol to contaminate the nupercaine. Although this evidence was professionally doubted, it was accepted at trial. It was held that the defendants could not have guarded against such an event happening on the basis that it was unforeseeable and, therefore, [...].
Answer
they escaped liability for negligence
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it aminate the nupercaine. Although this evidence was professionally doubted, it was accepted at trial. It was held that the defendants could not have guarded against such an event happening on the basis that it was unforeseeable and, therefore, <span>they escaped liability for negligence.<span><body><html>
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.