Here, a child fell from a tree and broke his leg. The hospital was negligent in its treatment and the child was left paralysed. However, the medical evidence in this instance indicated that there was a 75 per cent risk that the broken leg would have left the plaintiff with paralysis even if the hospital treatment had been perfect. The Court of Appeal awarded the plaintiff 25 per cent of the total value of his claim, on the basis that the child had lost his 25 per cent chance of recovery, (the so-called ‘loss of a chance’ argument). On appeal by the defendant, the House of Lords rejected this argument. Causation should be based on the damage caused, not loss of a chance, and the reality of the situation was that the child was most likely paralysed by the original fall. His claim, therefore, failed.
Answer
Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
Here, a child fell from a tree and broke his leg. The hospital was negligent in its treatment and the child was left paralysed. However, the medical evidence in this instance indicated that there was a 75 per cent risk that the broken leg would have left the plaintiff with paralysis even if the hospital treatment had been perfect. The Court of Appeal awarded the plaintiff 25 per cent of the total value of his claim, on the basis that the child had lost his 25 per cent chance of recovery, (the so-called ‘loss of a chance’ argument). On appeal by the defendant, the House of Lords rejected this argument. Causation should be based on the damage caused, not loss of a chance, and the reality of the situation was that the child was most likely paralysed by the original fall. His claim, therefore, failed.
Answer
?
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
Here, a child fell from a tree and broke his leg. The hospital was negligent in its treatment and the child was left paralysed. However, the medical evidence in this instance indicated that there was a 75 per cent risk that the broken leg would have left the plaintiff with paralysis even if the hospital treatment had been perfect. The Court of Appeal awarded the plaintiff 25 per cent of the total value of his claim, on the basis that the child had lost his 25 per cent chance of recovery, (the so-called ‘loss of a chance’ argument). On appeal by the defendant, the House of Lords rejected this argument. Causation should be based on the damage caused, not loss of a chance, and the reality of the situation was that the child was most likely paralysed by the original fall. His claim, therefore, failed.
Answer
Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it in Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750. Here, a child fell from a tree and broke his leg. The hospital was negligent in its treatment and the child was left paralysed. However, the medical evidence in this instance indicat
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.