Edited, memorised or added to reading list

on 21-Jul-2016 (Thu)

Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Click here to log in or create user.

#breach #negligence #tort
... in considering what a reasonable person would realise or would do in a particular situation we must have regard to human nature as we know it, and, if one thinks that in a particular situation the great majority of people would have behaved in one way, it would not be right to say that a reasonable man would or should have behaved in a different way. A ‘reasonable man’ does not mean a paragon of circumspection. (per Lord Reid in AC Billings & Sons Ltd v Riden [1958] AC 240)

statusnot read reprioritisations
last reprioritisation on reading queue position [%]
started reading on finished reading on

pdf

cannot see any pdfs




Flashcard 1365426965772

Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
Where a term of a contract is particularly onerous or unusual, and would not be generally known to the other party, the party seeking to enforce that term has to show that it has been fairly and reasonably brought to the attention of the other party: [case]
Answer
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
rm of a contract is particularly onerous or unusual, and would not be generally known to the other party, the party seeking to enforce that term has to show that it has been fairly and reasonably brought to the attention of the other party: <span>Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369033805068

Tags
#law #negligence #nervous-shock #tort
Question
A more recent example of a primary victim is the claimant in [case]. The claimant was involved in a car crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. While the claimant suffered no physical injury, the psychological effect of the car crash worsened his ME (Myalgic Encephalopathy) condition so as to render him permanently disabled. He was a primary victim because his condition arose from reasonable fear for his own physical safety.
Answer
Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A more recent example of a primary victim is the claimant in Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155. The claimant was involved in a car crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. While the claimant suffered no physical injury, the psychological effect of the car crash worsened his

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369036426508

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
A more recent example of a primary victim is the claimant in Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155. The claimant was involved in a car crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. While the claimant suffered no physical injury, the psychological effect of the car crash worsened his ME (Myalgic Encephalopathy) condition so as to render him permanently disabled. He was a primary victim because [...].
Answer
his condition arose from reasonable fear for his own physical safety


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
defendant’s negligence. While the claimant suffered no physical injury, the psychological effect of the car crash worsened his ME (Myalgic Encephalopathy) condition so as to render him permanently disabled. He was a primary victim because <span>his condition arose from reasonable fear for his own physical safety.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369038261516

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155
Answer
The claimant was involved in a car crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. While the claimant suffered no physical injury, the psychological effect of the car crash worsened his ME (Myalgic Encephalopathy) condition so as to render him permanently disabled. He was a primary victim because his condition arose from reasonable fear for his own physical safety.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A more recent example of a primary victim is the claimant in Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155. The claimant was involved in a car crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. While the claimant suffered no physical injury, the psychological effect of the car crash worsened his

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369040882956

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Page v Smith the defendant had admitted negligent driving, but had argued that the psychiatric damage suffered (ME) was not foreseeable and therefore no duty of care was owed in respect of it. The House of Lords disagreed. They held that [...]. There was no need to foresee psychiatric damage. As primary victims are within the danger zone or reasonably fear for their own safety, it is likely that in most cases the defendant should have foreseen physical injury to the claimant.
Answer
in the case of primary victims if physical injury is foreseeable to a particular claimant then that would be sufficient to enable the claimant to recover damages for nervous shock even though he had not been physically hurt


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Page v Smith the defendant had admitted negligent driving, but had argued that the psychiatric damage suffered (ME) was not foreseeable and therefore no duty of care was owed in respect of it. The House of Lords disagreed. They held that <span>in the case of primary victims if physical injury is foreseeable to a particular claimant then that would be sufficient to enable the claimant to recover damages for nervous shock even though he had not been physically hurt. There was no need to foresee psychiatric damage. As primary victims are within the danger zone or reasonably fear for their own safety, it is likely that in most cases the defendant

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369042980108

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘[...]’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907). A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.
Answer
depression


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constabl

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369044552972

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in [case]), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907). A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.
Answer
Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907)

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369046912268

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘[...]’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907). A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.
Answer
a positive psychiatric illness


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907). A physical illness, sustained after

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369048485132

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in [case] and Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907). A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.
Answer
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907). A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369050844428

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
Various examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in [case]). A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.
Answer
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
examples and definitions have been given of nervous shock, including ‘depression’ (Lord Denning in Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40), and ‘a positive psychiatric illness’ (Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Lord Oliver in <span>Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907). A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369054252300

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a [...] (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.
Answer
miscarriage


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369055825164

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see [case]), or a heart attack.
Answer
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369058184460

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a [...].
Answer
heart attack


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
html>A physical illness, sustained after the event in question, and resulting from nervous shock may also form the subject of a claim. Examples of this are a miscarriage (see Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92), or a heart attack.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369059757324

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
a case in which the claimant’s injuries, both psychological and physical, were not considered material, see [case].
Answer
Mazhar Hussain v Chief Constable of West Mercia [2008] EWCA Civ 1205


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
a case in which the claimant’s injuries, both psychological and physical, were not considered material, see Mazhar Hussain v Chief Constable of West Mercia [2008] EWCA Civ 1205.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369062116620

Tags
#law #negligence #nervous-shock #tort
Question
the House of Lords nevertheless adopted and approved the McLoughlin criteria in the decision of [case] which is now the leading case in this area with regards to secondary victims. The criteria to be taken into account when considering whether a duty of care is owed include:
1. whether the claimant has suffered a recognised psychiatric illness;
2. foreseeability of the psychiatric damage;
3. the relationship between the claimant and ‘the victim’;
4. proximity in time and space; and
5. manner of perception.
In addition, as an overarching consideration, the court will always take into account whether it is fair, just and reasonable for a duty to be imposed.
Answer
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] 4 All ER 907


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the House of Lords nevertheless adopted and approved the McLoughlin criteria in the decision of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] 4 All ER 907 which is now the leading case in this area with regards to secondary victims. The criteria to be taken into account when considering whether a duty of care is owed include: 1. wheth

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369064738060

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
primary victims need only establish that [...]. In contrast, secondary victims must establish that psychiatric harm specifically was reasonably foreseeable.
Answer
physical harm to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
primary victims need only establish that physical harm to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable. In contrast, secondary victims must establish that psychiatric harm specifically was reasonably foreseeable.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369066310924

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
primary victims need only establish that physical harm to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable. In contrast, secondary victims must establish that [...].
Answer
psychiatric harm specifically was reasonably foreseeable


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
primary victims need only establish that physical harm to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable. In contrast, secondary victims must establish that psychiatric harm specifically was reasonably foreseeable.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369067883788

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In [case] Lord Macmillan observed that injury by psychiatric damage is more subtle than physical harm. In this case the defendant was a motorcyclist who crashed and killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw some blood on the road. She suffered nervous shock as a result and subsequently miscarried her child. It was held that no duty of care was owed to the claimant. Whilst it was foreseeable that the defendant might physically harm other road users with his negligent driving, it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would suffer nervous shock.
Answer
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Lord Macmillan observed that injury by psychiatric damage is more subtle than physical harm. In this case the defendant was a motorcyclist who crashed and killed himself by his own neg

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369070243084

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Lord Macmillan observed that [...]. In this case the defendant was a motorcyclist who crashed and killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw some blood on the road. She suffered nervous shock as a result and subsequently miscarried her child. It was held that no duty of care was owed to the claimant. Whilst it was foreseeable that the defendant might physically harm other road users with his negligent driving, it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would suffer nervous shock.
Answer
injury by psychiatric damage is more subtle than physical harm


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Lord Macmillan observed that injury by psychiatric damage is more subtle than physical harm. In this case the defendant was a motorcyclist who crashed and killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369071815948

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Lord Macmillan observed that injury by psychiatric damage is more subtle than physical harm. In this case the defendant was a motorcyclist who crashed and killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw some blood on the road. She suffered nervous shock as a result and subsequently miscarried her child. It was held that [...]. Whilst it was foreseeable that the defendant might physically harm other road users with his negligent driving, it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would suffer nervous shock.
Answer
no duty of care was owed to the claimant


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
d killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw some blood on the road. She suffered nervous shock as a result and subsequently miscarried her child. It was held that <span>no duty of care was owed to the claimant. Whilst it was foreseeable that the defendant might physically harm other road users with his negligent driving, it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369073650956

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
The courts have generally taken the view that the claimant must possess the [...].
Answer
‘customary phlegm’ of the reasonable man and be able to withstand witnessing accidents to strangers


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The courts have generally taken the view that the claimant must possess the ‘customary phlegm’ of the reasonable man and be able to withstand witnessing accidents to strangers.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369075223820

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
However, there may be some extreme occasions when a stranger may be able to claim. In essence, the House of Lords in [case] thought that recovery might be possible if the accident or incident was particularly horrific, although this was denied in McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1. It is significant that the incidents in both Alcock and McFarlane themselves were particularly horrific and yet none of the claimants succeeded.
Answer
Alcock


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, there may be some extreme occasions when a stranger may be able to claim. In essence, the House of Lords in Alcock thought that recovery might be possible if the accident or incident was particularly horrific, although this was denied in McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1. It is signif

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369082301708

Tags
#law #negligence #nervous-shock #tort
Question
However, there may be some extreme occasions when a stranger may be able to claim. In essence, the House of Lords in Alcock thought that recovery might be possible if [...], although this was denied in McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1. It is significant that the incidents in both Alcock and McFarlane themselves were particularly horrific and yet none of the claimants succeeded.
Answer
the accident or incident was particularly horrific


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, there may be some extreme occasions when a stranger may be able to claim. In essence, the House of Lords in Alcock thought that recovery might be possible if the accident or incident was particularly horrific, although this was denied in McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1. It is significant that the incidents in both Alcock and McFarlane themselves were particularly horrific and

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369084398860

Tags
#law #negligence #nervous-shock #tort
Question
However, there may be some extreme occasions when a stranger may be able to claim. In essence, the House of Lords in Alcock thought that recovery might be possible if the accident or incident was particularly horrific, although this was denied in [case]. It is significant that the incidents in both Alcock and McFarlane themselves were particularly horrific and yet none of the claimants succeeded.
Answer
McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ver, there may be some extreme occasions when a stranger may be able to claim. In essence, the House of Lords in Alcock thought that recovery might be possible if the accident or incident was particularly horrific, although this was denied in <span>McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1. It is significant that the incidents in both Alcock and McFarlane themselves were particularly horrific and yet none of the claimants succeeded.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369087020300

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In [case], Lord Wilberforce spoke of the need for the claimant to be present at the scene, or to come to the immediate aftermath of the accident. As he stated, Mrs McLoughlin was ‘part of the catastrophe itself for none of the victims had been cleaned up or attended to.’
Answer
McLoughlin


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In McLoughlin, Lord Wilberforce spoke of the need for the claimant to be present at the scene, or to come to the immediate aftermath of the accident. As he stated, Mrs McLoughlin was ‘part of the c

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369089379596

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In McLoughlin, Lord Wilberforce spoke of the need for [...]. As he stated, Mrs McLoughlin was ‘part of the catastrophe itself for none of the victims had been cleaned up or attended to.’
Answer
the claimant to be present at the scene, or to come to the immediate aftermath of the accident


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In McLoughlin, Lord Wilberforce spoke of the need for the claimant to be present at the scene, or to come to the immediate aftermath of the accident. As he stated, Mrs McLoughlin was ‘part of the catastrophe itself for none of the victims had been cleaned up or attended to.’

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369090952460

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In McLoughlin, Lord Wilberforce spoke of the need for the claimant to be present at the scene, or to come to the immediate aftermath of the accident. As he stated, Mrs McLoughlin was ‘part of the catastrophe itself for [...].’
Answer
none of the victims had been cleaned up or attended to


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ead>In McLoughlin, Lord Wilberforce spoke of the need for the claimant to be present at the scene, or to come to the immediate aftermath of the accident. As he stated, Mrs McLoughlin was ‘part of the catastrophe itself for none of the victims had been cleaned up or attended to.’<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369092525324

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In [case] the claimant’s mother was injured at work due to the negligence of the defendant employer, and was making a good recovery when she unexpectedly collapsed and died at home three weeks after the accident. The claimant witnessed her mother’s death but not the initial accident. This did not satisfy the requirement of witnessing the accident or its immediate aftermath.
Answer
Taylor v A Novo Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Taylor v A Novo Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194 the claimant’s mother was injured at work due to the negligence of the defendant employer, and was making a good recovery when she unexpectedly collapsed and died at home three weeks

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369094884620

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Taylor v A Novo Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194 the claimant’s mother was injured at work due to the negligence of the defendant employer, and was making a good recovery when she unexpectedly collapsed and died at home three weeks after the accident. The claimant witnessed her mother’s death but not the initial accident. [Outcome].
Answer
This did not satisfy the requirement of witnessing the accident or its immediate aftermath


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t work due to the negligence of the defendant employer, and was making a good recovery when she unexpectedly collapsed and died at home three weeks after the accident. The claimant witnessed her mother’s death but not the initial accident. <span>This did not satisfy the requirement of witnessing the accident or its immediate aftermath.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369097243916

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
One of the grounds upon which the claim in Alcock failed was that [...].
Answer
one of the claimants did not see their relative until some nine hours later (compared with the two hours in McLoughlin) and then they were identifying bodies in a mortuary


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
One of the grounds upon which the claim in Alcock failed was that one of the claimants did not see their relative until some nine hours later (compared with the two hours in McLoughlin) and then they were identifying bodies in a mortuary.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369099078924

Tags
#law #negligence #nervous-shock #tort
Question
In Alcock this situation actually arose as some of the claimants witnessed the disaster on live TV, while others saw news reports throughout the day. The House of Lords held that [...]. Even though the defendants knew of the broadcast, TV companies have guidelines that prevent the transmission of the suffering and death of identifiable individuals. This was sufficient to ensure that the defendants would not be liable.
Answer
there was no duty of care owed by the defendants to the viewers of TV


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Alcock this situation actually arose as some of the claimants witnessed the disaster on live TV, while others saw news reports throughout the day. The House of Lords held that there was no duty of care owed by the defendants to the viewers of TV. Even though the defendants knew of the broadcast, TV companies have guidelines that prevent the transmission of the suffering and death of identifiable individuals. This was sufficie

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369100913932

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
It is not enough that the claimant witnesses the events through their own unaided senses. Their condition must also be proved to be ‘[...]’ (Alcock), rather than a gradual realisation of what has happened.
Answer
a reaction to the immediate and horrifying impact


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It is not enough that the claimant witnesses the events through their own unaided senses. Their condition must also be proved to be ‘a reaction to the immediate and horrifying impact’ (Alcock), rather than a gradual realisation of what has happened.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369102486796

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
It is not enough that the claimant witnesses the events through their own unaided senses. Their condition must also be proved to be ‘a reaction to the immediate and horrifying impact’ ([case]), rather than a gradual realisation of what has happened.
Answer
Alcock


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It is not enough that the claimant witnesses the events through their own unaided senses. Their condition must also be proved to be ‘a reaction to the immediate and horrifying impact’ (Alcock), rather than a gradual realisation of what has happened.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369105108236

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In [case] the claimant suffered psychiatric illness after negligent medical treatment led to the death of her 10 month-old baby. The Court of Appeal held that although the events leading to the claimant’s psychiatric condition took place over 36 hours, the series of events leading to the death could together constitute a ‘horrifying event’ , including witnessing the medical negligence. They also confirmed the trial judge’s ruling that the claimant’s appreciation of events was ‘sudden’ because each separate event had an immediate impact.
Answer
North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792 the claimant suffered psychiatric illness after negligent medical treatment led to the death of her 10 month-old baby. The Court of Appeal held that although the events leading to the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369107467532

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792 the claimant suffered psychiatric illness after negligent medical treatment led to the death of her 10 month-old baby. The Court of Appeal held that although the events leading to the claimant’s psychiatric condition took place over [...], the series of events leading to the death could together constitute a ‘horrifying event’ , including witnessing the medical negligence. They also confirmed the trial judge’s ruling that the claimant’s appreciation of events was ‘sudden’ because each separate event had an immediate impact.
Answer
36 hours


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
v 1792 the claimant suffered psychiatric illness after negligent medical treatment led to the death of her 10 month-old baby. The Court of Appeal held that although the events leading to the claimant’s psychiatric condition took place over <span>36 hours, the series of events leading to the death could together constitute a ‘horrifying event’ , including witnessing the medical negligence. They also confirmed the trial judge’s ruling t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369109040396

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792 the claimant suffered psychiatric illness after negligent medical treatment led to the death of her 10 month-old baby. The Court of Appeal held that although the events leading to the claimant’s psychiatric condition took place over 36 hours, [...] , including witnessing the medical negligence. They also confirmed the trial judge’s ruling that the claimant’s appreciation of events was ‘sudden’ because each separate event had an immediate impact.
Answer
the series of events leading to the death could together constitute a ‘horrifying event’


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
claimant suffered psychiatric illness after negligent medical treatment led to the death of her 10 month-old baby. The Court of Appeal held that although the events leading to the claimant’s psychiatric condition took place over 36 hours, <span>the series of events leading to the death could together constitute a ‘horrifying event’ , including witnessing the medical negligence. They also confirmed the trial judge’s ruling that the claimant’s appreciation of events was ‘sudden’ because each separate event had an i

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369110613260

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792 the claimant suffered psychiatric illness after negligent medical treatment led to the death of her 10 month-old baby. The Court of Appeal held that although the events leading to the claimant’s psychiatric condition took place over 36 hours, the series of events leading to the death could together constitute a ‘horrifying event’ , including witnessing the medical negligence. They also confirmed the trial judge’s ruling that the claimant’s appreciation of events was ‘sudden’ because [...]
Answer
each separate event had an immediate impact.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
eries of events leading to the death could together constitute a ‘horrifying event’ , including witnessing the medical negligence. They also confirmed the trial judge’s ruling that the claimant’s appreciation of events was ‘sudden’ because <span>each separate event had an immediate impact. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369112448268

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In [...] the defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, the loss was recoverable. In addition, the metal would have been sold at a profit and the loss of profit on that particular damaged metal was also recoverable as consequential economic loss.
Answer
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27 the defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, the loss was re

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369120836876

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27 the defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, [...]. In addition, the metal would have been sold at a profit and the loss of profit on that particular damaged metal was also recoverable as consequential economic loss.
Answer
the loss was recoverable


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
teel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27 the defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, <span>the loss was recoverable. In addition, the metal would have been sold at a profit and the loss of profit on that particular damaged metal was also recoverable as consequential economic loss.<span></bod

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369122409740

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27 the defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, the loss was recoverable. In addition, the metal [...].
Answer
would have been sold at a profit and the loss of profit on that particular damaged metal was also recoverable as consequential economic loss


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
rs) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27 the defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, the loss was recoverable. In addition, the metal <span>would have been sold at a profit and the loss of profit on that particular damaged metal was also recoverable as consequential economic loss.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369124244748

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
At the boundary of consequential economic loss, the claimant in [case] was the owner of a bridge damaged when it was hit by a lorry due to the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant, Network Rail, was obliged to compensate train operating companies who were unable to operate a service until the bridge was repaired, and sought to recover this cost from the defendant. This was recoverable but lay at the outer fringe of recoverability.
Answer
Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 644


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
At the boundary of consequential economic loss, the claimant in Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 644 was the owner of a bridge damaged when it was hit by a lorry due to the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant, Network Rail, was obliged to compensate train operating companies w

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369126604044

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
At the boundary of consequential economic loss, the claimant in Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 644 was the owner of a bridge damaged when it was hit by a lorry due to the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant, Network Rail, was obliged to compensate train operating companies who were unable to operate a service until the bridge was repaired, and sought to recover this cost from the defendant. [outcome].
Answer
This was recoverable but lay at the outer fringe of recoverability


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ue to the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant, Network Rail, was obliged to compensate train operating companies who were unable to operate a service until the bridge was repaired, and sought to recover this cost from the defendant. <span>This was recoverable but lay at the outer fringe of recoverability.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369129225484

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
If [...] then their loss will be pure economic loss. This might arise, for example, where the claimant has made a bad investment, missed a contractual opportunity or lost an inheritance.
Answer
the claimant has suffered no physical damage to their person or property


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If the claimant has suffered no physical damage to their person or property then their loss will be pure economic loss. This might arise, for example, where the claimant has made a bad investment, missed a contractual opportunity or lost an inheritance.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369130798348

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
If the claimant has suffered no physical damage to their person or property then their loss will be [...]. This might arise, for example, where the claimant has made a bad investment, missed a contractual opportunity or lost an inheritance.
Answer
pure economic loss


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If the claimant has suffered no physical damage to their person or property then their loss will be pure economic loss. This might arise, for example, where the claimant has made a bad investment, missed a contractual opportunity or lost an inheritance.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369132633356

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Though Junior Books has not been overruled in subsequent cases, it has on numerous occasions been distinguished and is now regarded as a decision unique upon its own facts. A clear illustration of this can be seen in [case] in which a claim for damage to property (i.e. dead lobsters) was allowed but not for a defect in a product (i.e. faulty pumps).
Answer
Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd [1986] QB 507


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
/head>Though Junior Books has not been overruled in subsequent cases, it has on numerous occasions been distinguished and is now regarded as a decision unique upon its own facts. A clear illustration of this can be seen in Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd [1986] QB 507 in which a claim for damage to property (i.e. dead lobsters) was allowed but not for a defect in a product (i.e. faulty pumps).<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369134992652

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Though Junior Books has not been overruled in subsequent cases, it has on numerous occasions been distinguished and is now regarded as a decision unique upon its own facts. A clear illustration of this can be seen in Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd [1986] QB 507 in which a claim for [...].
Answer
damage to property (i.e. dead lobsters) was allowed but not for a defect in a product (i.e. faulty pumps)


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
cases, it has on numerous occasions been distinguished and is now regarded as a decision unique upon its own facts. A clear illustration of this can be seen in Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd [1986] QB 507 in which a claim for <span>damage to property (i.e. dead lobsters) was allowed but not for a defect in a product (i.e. faulty pumps).<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369136827660

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In [case], concerning a defect in the supplying of glass by the defendants for a building in Abu Dhabi, the court refused a claim for pure economic loss in the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties.
Answer
Simaan General Contracting Co. v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No2) [1988] QB 758


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Simaan General Contracting Co. v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No2) [1988] QB 758, concerning a defect in the supplying of glass by the defendants for a building in Abu Dhabi, the court refused a claim for pure economic loss in the absence of a contractual relation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369139186956

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Simaan General Contracting Co. v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No2) [1988] QB 758, concerning a defect in the supplying of glass by the defendants for a building in Abu Dhabi, the court [...] in the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties.
Answer
refused a claim for pure economic loss


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Simaan General Contracting Co. v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No2) [1988] QB 758, concerning a defect in the supplying of glass by the defendants for a building in Abu Dhabi, the court refused a claim for pure economic loss in the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369140759820

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Simaan General Contracting Co. v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No2) [1988] QB 758, concerning a defect in the supplying of glass by the defendants for a building in Abu Dhabi, the court refused a claim for pure economic loss in the [...].
Answer
absence of a contractual relationship between the parties


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
y>In Simaan General Contracting Co. v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No2) [1988] QB 758, concerning a defect in the supplying of glass by the defendants for a building in Abu Dhabi, the court refused a claim for pure economic loss in the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369142594828

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In [case], the House of Lords confirmed that the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was rightly classified as pure economic loss.
Answer
Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908, the House of Lords confirmed that the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was rightly classified as pure economic loss.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369144954124

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908, the House of Lords confirmed that [...].
Answer
the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was rightly classified as pure economic loss


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908, the House of Lords confirmed that the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was rightly classified as pure economic loss.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369146526988

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908, the House of Lords confirmed that the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was [...].
Answer
rightly classified as pure economic loss


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908, the House of Lords confirmed that the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was rightly classified as pure economic loss.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369148361996

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Formal, considered advice Lord Devlin in [case] suggested that the relationship was something like a contractual one, where it might be said that the parties ought to be aware that legal implications could arise from the giving of advice. There is unlikely to be a special relationship in domestic or social contexts, although exceptionally there may be – see Chaudhry v Prabhakar
Answer
Hedley Byrne


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Formal, considered advice Lord Devlin in Hedley Byrne suggested that the relationship was something like a contractual one, where it might be said that the parties ought to be aware that legal implications could arise from the giving of a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369150721292

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Formal, considered advice Lord Devlin in Hedley Byrne suggested that the relationship was something like a contractual one, where [...]. There is unlikely to be a special relationship in domestic or social contexts, although exceptionally there may be – see Chaudhry v Prabhakar
Answer
it might be said that the parties ought to be aware that legal implications could arise from the giving of advice


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Formal, considered advice Lord Devlin in Hedley Byrne suggested that the relationship was something like a contractual one, where it might be said that the parties ought to be aware that legal implications could arise from the giving of advice. There is unlikely to be a special relationship in domestic or social contexts, although exceptionally there may be – see Chaudhry v Prabhakar

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369152294156

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Formal, considered advice Lord Devlin in Hedley Byrne suggested that the relationship was something like a contractual one, where it might be said that the parties ought to be aware that legal implications could arise from the giving of advice. There is unlikely to be a special relationship in domestic or social contexts, although exceptionally there may be – see [case]
Answer
Chaudhry v Prabhakar


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ere it might be said that the parties ought to be aware that legal implications could arise from the giving of advice. There is unlikely to be a special relationship in domestic or social contexts, although exceptionally there may be – see <span>Chaudhry v Prabhakar<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369154915596

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In [case] the Court of Appeal stressed that the specialrelationship depended on the plaintiff relying on a statement that was made for a particular purpose.
Answer
James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] 1 All ER 134


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] 1 All ER 134 the Court of Appeal stressed that the specialrelationship depended on the plaintiff relying on a statement that was made for a particular purpose.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369157274892

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] 1 All ER 134 the Court of Appeal stressed that the specialrelationship depended on the plaintiff [...].
Answer
relying on a statement that was made for a particular purpose


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] 1 All ER 134 the Court of Appeal stressed that the specialrelationship depended on the plaintiff relying on a statement that was made for a particular purpose.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369159109900

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
If a claimant uses a statement, made for a particular purpose, for a different purpose, then liability will generally not arise. For example, in [case], the auditors of a company were held to owe no duty of care in respect of a bank which lent money to that company. Auditors do not generally make their report to creditors, or to any other person with the intention or knowledge that it would be communicated to the creditors.
Answer
Al-Saudi Banque v Clarke Pixley [1989] 3 All ER 361


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If a claimant uses a statement, made for a particular purpose, for a different purpose, then liability will generally not arise. For example, in Al-Saudi Banque v Clarke Pixley [1989] 3 All ER 361, the auditors of a company were held to owe no duty of care in respect of a bank which lent money to that company. Auditors do not generally make their report to creditors, or to any

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369161469196

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
If a claimant uses a statement, made for a particular purpose, for a different purpose, then liability will generally not arise. For example, in Al-Saudi Banque v Clarke Pixley [1989] 3 All ER 361, the auditors of a company were held [...]. Auditors do not generally make their report to creditors, or to any other person with the intention or knowledge that it would be communicated to the creditors.
Answer
to owe no duty of care in respect of a bank which lent money to that company


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
>If a claimant uses a statement, made for a particular purpose, for a different purpose, then liability will generally not arise. For example, in Al-Saudi Banque v Clarke Pixley [1989] 3 All ER 361, the auditors of a company were held to owe no duty of care in respect of a bank which lent money to that company. Auditors do not generally make their report to creditors, or to any other person with the intention or knowledge that it would be communicated to the creditors.<span><body><

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369163304204

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
The defendant may be found liable because [...]. In some situations the law will impose liability in these circumstances.

In the case of free or gratuitous advice it might be reasonable for there to be no legal liability on the part of the maker of the statement. This will be harder to justify if the advice has been paid for.
Answer
they assumed responsibility for the correctness of their statement


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The defendant may be found liable because they assumed responsibility for the correctness of their statement. In some situations the law will impose liability in these circumstances. In the case of free or gratuitous advice it might be reasonable for there to be no legal liability o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369164877068

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
The defendant may be found liable because they assumed responsibility for the correctness of their statement. In some situations the law will impose liability in these circumstances.

In the case of free or gratuitous advice it might be reasonable for there to be no legal liability on the part of the maker of the statement. This will be harder to justify if [...].
Answer
the advice has been paid for


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
s the law will impose liability in these circumstances. In the case of free or gratuitous advice it might be reasonable for there to be no legal liability on the part of the maker of the statement. This will be harder to justify if <span>the advice has been paid for.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369166712076

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
[case] was another case concerning advice given by auditors, this time in respect of a company take-over. The advisees were carrying out the take-over and it was held that, as they were experienced business people, it was not reasonable for them to have relied solely on the draft accounts prepared by the defendants. They should have obtained independent advice.
Answer
James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] All ER 134


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] All ER 134 was another case concerning advice given by auditors, this time in respect of a company take-over. The advisees were carrying out the take-over and it was held that, as they were expe

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369169071372

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] All ER 134
Answer
Another case concerning advice given by auditors, this time in respect of a company take-over. The advisees were carrying out the take-over and it was held that, as they were experienced business people, it was not reasonable for them to have relied solely on the draft accounts prepared by the defendants. They should have obtained independent advice.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] All ER 134 was another case concerning advice given by auditors, this time in respect of a company take-over. The advisees were carrying out the take-over and it was held that, as they were expe

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369171430668

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] All ER 134 was another case concerning advice given by auditors, this time in respect of a company take-over. The advisees were carrying out the take-over and it was held that, [...]. They should have obtained independent advice.
Answer
as they were experienced business people, it was not reasonable for them to have relied solely on the draft accounts prepared by the defendants


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
>James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] All ER 134 was another case concerning advice given by auditors, this time in respect of a company take-over. The advisees were carrying out the take-over and it was held that, as they were experienced business people, it was not reasonable for them to have relied solely on the draft accounts prepared by the defendants. They should have obtained independent advice.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369173003532

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson [1991] All ER 134 was another case concerning advice given by auditors, this time in respect of a company take-over. The advisees were carrying out the take-over and it was held that, as they were experienced business people, it was not reasonable for them to have relied solely on the draft accounts prepared by the defendants. They should have [...].
Answer
obtained independent advice


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
take-over. The advisees were carrying out the take-over and it was held that, as they were experienced business people, it was not reasonable for them to have relied solely on the draft accounts prepared by the defendants. They should have <span>obtained independent advice.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369175100684

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In [case] the words ‘without responsibility’ were used in the statement made. The House of Lords felt that the defendant could hardly be said to be assuming responsibility when at the same time as giving the advice they were making it clear that they did not accept responsibility.
Answer
Hedley Byrne v Heller


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Hedley Byrne v Heller the words ‘without responsibility’ were used in the statement made. The House of Lords felt that the defendant could hardly be said to be assuming responsibility when at the same time

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369177984268

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Hedley Byrne v Heller the words ‘[...]’ were used in the statement made. The House of Lords felt that the defendant could hardly be said to be assuming responsibility when at the same time as giving the advice they were making it clear that they did not accept responsibility.
Answer
without responsibility


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Hedley Byrne v Heller the words ‘without responsibility’ were used in the statement made. The House of Lords felt that the defendant could hardly be said to be assuming responsibility when at the same time as giving the advice they were ma

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369179819276

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Hedley Byrne v Heller the words ‘without responsibility’ were used in the statement made. The House of Lords felt that [...].
Answer
the defendant could hardly be said to be assuming responsibility when at the same time as giving the advice they were making it clear that they did not accept responsibility


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Hedley Byrne v Heller the words ‘without responsibility’ were used in the statement made. The House of Lords felt that the defendant could hardly be said to be assuming responsibility when at the same time as giving the advice they were making it clear that they did not accept responsibility.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369181654284

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Again, in [case] liability was imposed for a negligent statement outside the rule in Hedley Byrne. In this case a solicitor had given negligent information about the witnessing of X’s will. X relied on this and as a result the plaintiff beneficiary was unable to inherit under the will. Liability was justified as the solicitor owed a fiduciary duty to X, the testator, that was breached. Furthermore, it was foreseeable that the plaintiff as a beneficiary would be affected.
Answer
Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Again, in Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297 liability was imposed for a negligent statement outside the rule in Hedley Byrne. In this case a solicitor had given negligent information about the witnessing of X’s will. X relied on

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369184013580

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Again, in Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297 liability was imposed for a negligent statement outside the rule in Hedley Byrne. In this case a solicitor had given negligent information about the witnessing of X’s will. X relied on this and as a result the plaintiff beneficiary was unable to inherit under the will. [outcome]. Furthermore, it was foreseeable that the plaintiff as a beneficiary would be affected.
Answer
Liability was justified as the solicitor owed a fiduciary duty to X, the testator, that was breached


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
gligent statement outside the rule in Hedley Byrne. In this case a solicitor had given negligent information about the witnessing of X’s will. X relied on this and as a result the plaintiff beneficiary was unable to inherit under the will. <span>Liability was justified as the solicitor owed a fiduciary duty to X, the testator, that was breached. Furthermore, it was foreseeable that the plaintiff as a beneficiary would be affected.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369186372876

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Again, in Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297 liability was imposed for a negligent statement outside the rule in Hedley Byrne. In this case a solicitor had given negligent information about the witnessing of X’s will. X relied on this and as a result the plaintiff beneficiary was unable to inherit under the will. Liability was justified as the solicitor owed a fiduciary duty to X, the testator, that was breached. Furthermore, [...].
Answer
it was foreseeable that the plaintiff as a beneficiary would be affected


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the witnessing of X’s will. X relied on this and as a result the plaintiff beneficiary was unable to inherit under the will. Liability was justified as the solicitor owed a fiduciary duty to X, the testator, that was breached. Furthermore, <span>it was foreseeable that the plaintiff as a beneficiary would be affected.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369188207884

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In [case] the defendant advisory service told X that, following a vasectomy operation, he was permanently infertile. X commenced a relationship with Mrs Goodwill and told her he had had a vasectomy. Subsequently Mrs Goodwill became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter. The Court of Appeal held that a duty was not owed to her by the defendant in respect of the advice given as it was not foreseeable that the advice would be passed on to her and relied upon by her without further independent inquiry. It could not be said that the advisory service assumed responsibility to X’s future sexual partners when giving advice.
Answer
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Services [1996] 2 All ER 161


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Services [1996] 2 All ER 161 the defendant advisory service told X that, following a vasectomy operation, he was permanently infertile. X commenced a relationship with Mrs Goodwill and told her he had had a vasect

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369190567180

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Services [1996] 2 All ER 161 the defendant advisory service told X that, following a vasectomy operation, he was permanently infertile. X commenced a relationship with Mrs Goodwill and told her he had had a vasectomy. Subsequently Mrs Goodwill became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter. The Court of Appeal held that [...]. It could not be said that the advisory service assumed responsibility to X’s future sexual partners when giving advice.
Answer
a duty was not owed to her by the defendant in respect of the advice given as it was not foreseeable that the advice would be passed on to her and relied upon by her without further independent inquiry


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ng a vasectomy operation, he was permanently infertile. X commenced a relationship with Mrs Goodwill and told her he had had a vasectomy. Subsequently Mrs Goodwill became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter. The Court of Appeal held that <span>a duty was not owed to her by the defendant in respect of the advice given as it was not foreseeable that the advice would be passed on to her and relied upon by her without further independent inquiry. It could not be said that the advisory service assumed responsibility to X’s future sexual partners when giving advice.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369192402188

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In [case], the House of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy. As such, third parties were given a right of action. Lord Goff stated:

In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended beneficiary a remedy under the Hedley Byrne principle by holding that the assumption of responsibility by the solicitor towards his client should be held in law to extend to the intended beneficiary who (as the solicitor can reasonably foresee) may as a result of the solicitor’s negligence, be deprived of his intended legacy in circumstances in which neither the testator nor his estate will have a remedy against the solicitor.

Answer
White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, the House of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369194761484

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, the House of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that [...]. As such, third parties were given a right of action. Lord Goff stated:

In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended beneficiary a remedy under the Hedley Byrne principle by holding that the assumption of responsibility by the solicitor towards his client should be held in law to extend to the intended beneficiary who (as the solicitor can reasonably foresee) may as a result of the solicitor’s negligence, be deprived of his intended legacy in circumstances in which neither the testator nor his estate will have a remedy against the solicitor.

Answer
solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, the House of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy. As such, third parties were given a right of action. Lord Goff stated: In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369196334348

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, the House of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy. As such, [...]. Lord Goff stated:

In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended beneficiary a remedy under the Hedley Byrne principle by holding that the assumption of responsibility by the solicitor towards his client should be held in law to extend to the intended beneficiary who (as the solicitor can reasonably foresee) may as a result of the solicitor’s negligence, be deprived of his intended legacy in circumstances in which neither the testator nor his estate will have a remedy against the solicitor.

Answer
third parties were given a right of action


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
use of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy. As such, <span>third parties were given a right of action. Lord Goff stated: In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended beneficiary a remedy under the Hedley Byrne principl

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369198169356

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In [...], the defendant built a haystack on land adjoining the claimant’s property. As a result of poor ventilation, the haystack caught alight and caused damage to the claimant’s land. The defendant had been warned of the possibility of this happening but had chosen to ignore it (he was, he explained, fully insured). Despite the defendant’s claim that he had honestly misjudged the risk, he was found liable. A reasonable person would not have taken the risk and would have adopted preventative precautions.
Answer
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 468


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 468, the defendant built a haystack on land adjoining the claimant’s property. As a result of poor ventilation, the haystack caught alight and caused damage to the claimant’s land. The de

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369199742220

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 468, the defendant built a haystack on land adjoining the claimant’s property. As a result of poor ventilation, the haystack caught alight and caused damage to the claimant’s land. The defendant had been warned of the possibility of this happening but had chosen to ignore it (he was, he explained, fully insured). Despite [...]. A reasonable person would not have taken the risk and would have adopted preventative precautions.
Answer
the defendant’s claim that he had honestly misjudged the risk, he was found liable


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
a result of poor ventilation, the haystack caught alight and caused damage to the claimant’s land. The defendant had been warned of the possibility of this happening but had chosen to ignore it (he was, he explained, fully insured). Despite <span>the defendant’s claim that he had honestly misjudged the risk, he was found liable. A reasonable person would not have taken the risk and would have adopted preventative precautions.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369201315084

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 468, the defendant built a haystack on land adjoining the claimant’s property. As a result of poor ventilation, the haystack caught alight and caused damage to the claimant’s land. The defendant had been warned of the possibility of this happening but had chosen to ignore it (he was, he explained, fully insured). Despite the defendant’s claim that he had honestly misjudged the risk, he was found liable. A [...].
Answer
reasonable person would not have taken the risk and would have adopted preventative precautions


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
mant’s land. The defendant had been warned of the possibility of this happening but had chosen to ignore it (he was, he explained, fully insured). Despite the defendant’s claim that he had honestly misjudged the risk, he was found liable. A <span>reasonable person would not have taken the risk and would have adopted preventative precautions.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369203150092

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
... in considering what a reasonable person would realise or would do in a particular situation we must have regard to human nature as we know it, and, if one thinks that in a particular situation the great majority of people would have behaved in one way, it would not be right to say that a reasonable man would or should have behaved in a different way. A ‘reasonable man’ does not mean a paragon of circumspection. (per Lord Reid in [case])
Answer
AC Billings & Sons Ltd v Riden [1958] AC 240


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e great majority of people would have behaved in one way, it would not be right to say that a reasonable man would or should have behaved in a different way. A ‘reasonable man’ does not mean a paragon of circumspection. (per Lord Reid in <span>AC Billings & Sons Ltd v Riden [1958] AC 240)<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369205509388

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
... in considering what a reasonable person would realise or would do in a particular situation we must have regard to [...], and, if one thinks that in a particular situation the great majority of people would have behaved in one way, it would not be right to say that a reasonable man would or should have behaved in a different way. A ‘reasonable man’ does not mean a paragon of circumspection. (per Lord Reid in AC Billings & Sons Ltd v Riden [1958] AC 240)
Answer
human nature as we know it


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
... in considering what a reasonable person would realise or would do in a particular situation we must have regard to human nature as we know it, and, if one thinks that in a particular situation the great majority of people would have behaved in one way, it would not be right to say that a reasonable man would or should have

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369207606540

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In the case of [case], the liability of a doctor administering electro-convulsive therapy was considered. It was stated that:

A man need not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being found negligent... it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.

Answer
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118, the liability of a doctor administering electro-convulsive therapy was considered. It was stated that: A man need not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369209965836

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118, the liability of a doctor administering electro-convulsive therapy was considered. It was stated that:

A man need not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being found negligent... it is sufficient if he [...].

Answer
exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
] 2 All ER 118, the liability of a doctor administering electro-convulsive therapy was considered. It was stated that: A man need not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being found negligent... it is sufficient if he <span>exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369211800844

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
Similarly, in [case], a junior doctor was judged by the standard of the reasonable doctor in that field of medicine, regardless of his own inexperience. The standard is tailored to the activity the doctor is undertaking, not to his individual level of experience.
Answer
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Similarly, in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871, a junior doctor was judged by the standard of the reasonable doctor in that field of medicine, regardless of his own inexperience. The standard is tailored to the activity the doctor

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369214160140

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
Similarly, in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871, a junior doctor was judged by the standard of the reasonable doctor in that field of medicine, regardless of his own inexperience. The standard is tailored to [...].
Answer
the activity the doctor is undertaking, not to his individual level of experience


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
an>Similarly, in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871, a junior doctor was judged by the standard of the reasonable doctor in that field of medicine, regardless of his own inexperience. The standard is tailored to the activity the doctor is undertaking, not to his individual level of experience.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369215995148

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In [case] a jeweller who undertook ear piercing was required to possess the skill of the reasonable jeweller, not that of a surgeon.
Answer
Philips v William Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Philips v William Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566 a jeweller who undertook ear piercing was required to possess the skill of the reasonable jeweller, not that of a surgeon.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369218354444

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In Philips v William Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566 a jeweller who undertook ear piercing was required to possess the skill of [...].
Answer
the reasonable jeweller, not that of a surgeon


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Philips v William Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566 a jeweller who undertook ear piercing was required to possess the skill of the reasonable jeweller, not that of a surgeon.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369220189452

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In [case] a DIY fanatic was required to reach the standard of the reasonable man not that of the experienced carpenter, since the task he had undertaken was normally performed by ordinary men. A different standard might have been imposed if the defendant had undertaken complicated electrical rewiring or plumbing.
Answer
Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 QB 265


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 QB 265 a DIY fanatic was required to reach the standard of the reasonable man not that of the experienced carpenter, since the task he had undertaken was normally performed by ordinary men. A

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369222548748

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 QB 265 a DIY fanatic was required to reach the standard of [...], since the task he had undertaken was normally performed by ordinary men. A different standard might have been imposed if the defendant had undertaken complicated electrical rewiring or plumbing.
Answer
the reasonable man not that of the experienced carpenter


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 QB 265 a DIY fanatic was required to reach the standard of the reasonable man not that of the experienced carpenter, since the task he had undertaken was normally performed by ordinary men. A different standard might have been imposed if the defendant had undertaken complicated electrical rewiring

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369224383756

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In [case], the defendant, a stage hypnotist, was expected to take the sort of precautions that a ‘reasonably careful exponent of stage hypnotism’ would adopt to prevent any injury to a member of the audience. A similar view was taken in Watson v Gray, The Times, 26 November 1998, with regard to professional footballers.
Answer
Gates v McKenna [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Med 405


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Gates v McKenna [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Med 405, the defendant, a stage hypnotist, was expected to take the sort of precautions that a ‘reasonably careful exponent of stage hypnotism’ would adopt to prevent any injury to a member o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369226743052

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In Gates v McKenna [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Med 405, the defendant, a stage hypnotist, was expected to take the sort of precautions that a ‘reasonably careful exponent of stage hypnotism’ would adopt to prevent any injury to a member of the audience. A similar view was taken in [case], with regard to professional footballers.
Answer
Watson v Gray, The Times, 26 November 1998


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Rep Med 405, the defendant, a stage hypnotist, was expected to take the sort of precautions that a ‘reasonably careful exponent of stage hypnotism’ would adopt to prevent any injury to a member of the audience. A similar view was taken in <span>Watson v Gray, The Times, 26 November 1998, with regard to professional footballers.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369229364492

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
However, in [case] the Court of Appeal adopted an alternative view. Here a lorry driver crashed his vehicle into the claimant’s shop after suffering a hypoglycaemic state. There was no evidence that the driver knew that his ability to drive was impaired. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant should be judged in comparison with a reasonably competent driver who is unaware that he is suffering a condition that impairs his ability to drive. The driver was thus found not liable.
Answer
Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1263


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, in Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1263 the Court of Appeal adopted an alternative view. Here a lorry driver crashed his vehicle into the claimant’s shop after suffering a hypoglycaemic state. There was no evidence that the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369231723788

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
However, in Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1263 the Court of Appeal adopted an alternative view. Here a lorry driver crashed his vehicle into the claimant’s shop after suffering a hypoglycaemic state. There was no evidence that the driver knew that his ability to drive was impaired. The Court of Appeal held that [...]. The driver was thus found not liable.
Answer
the defendant should be judged in comparison with a reasonably competent driver who is unaware that he is suffering a condition that impairs his ability to drive


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
d an alternative view. Here a lorry driver crashed his vehicle into the claimant’s shop after suffering a hypoglycaemic state. There was no evidence that the driver knew that his ability to drive was impaired. The Court of Appeal held that <span>the defendant should be judged in comparison with a reasonably competent driver who is unaware that he is suffering a condition that impairs his ability to drive. The driver was thus found not liable.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369233296652

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
However, in Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1263 the Court of Appeal adopted an alternative view. Here a lorry driver crashed his vehicle into the claimant’s shop after suffering a hypoglycaemic state. There was no evidence that the driver knew that his ability to drive was impaired. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant should be judged in comparison with a reasonably competent driver who is unaware that he is suffering a condition that impairs his ability to drive. [outcome].
Answer
The driver was thus found not liable


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
r knew that his ability to drive was impaired. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant should be judged in comparison with a reasonably competent driver who is unaware that he is suffering a condition that impairs his ability to drive. <span>The driver was thus found not liable.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369235918092

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
However, note that the court can always rule that the common practice is itself negligent, as it did in the case of [case], where the common practice of sailing a RO-RO ferry with the bow doors open was declared negligent.
Answer
Re Herald of Free Enterprise ,The Independent, 18 December 1987


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, note that the court can always rule that the common practice is itself negligent, as it did in the case of Re Herald of Free Enterprise ,The Independent, 18 December 1987, where the common practice of sailing a RO-RO ferry with the bow doors open was declared negligent.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369317969164

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It should not, however, be assumed a doctor always owes a duty of care. For example, if a doctor provides advice for an occupational health report, there is no direct doctor-patient relationship and a duty to prevent economic loss does not exist. See [case].
Answer
Kapfunde v Abbey National plc (1998) 46 BMLR 176


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
d not, however, be assumed a doctor always owes a duty of care. For example, if a doctor provides advice for an occupational health report, there is no direct doctor-patient relationship and a duty to prevent economic loss does not exist. See <span>Kapfunde v Abbey National plc (1998) 46 BMLR 176.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369320328460

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It should not, however, be assumed a doctor always owes a duty of care. For example, if a doctor [...], there is no direct doctor-patient relationship and a duty to prevent economic loss does not exist. See Kapfunde v Abbey National plc (1998) 46 BMLR 176.
Answer
provides advice for an occupational health report


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It should not, however, be assumed a doctor always owes a duty of care. For example, if a doctor provides advice for an occupational health report, there is no direct doctor-patient relationship and a duty to prevent economic loss does not exist. See Kapfunde v Abbey National plc (1998) 46 BMLR 176.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369321901324

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It should not, however, be assumed a doctor always owes a duty of care. For example, if a doctor provides advice for an occupational health report, there is [...]. See Kapfunde v Abbey National plc (1998) 46 BMLR 176.
Answer
no direct doctor-patient relationship and a duty to prevent economic loss does not exist


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It should not, however, be assumed a doctor always owes a duty of care. For example, if a doctor provides advice for an occupational health report, there is no direct doctor-patient relationship and a duty to prevent economic loss does not exist. See Kapfunde v Abbey National plc (1998) 46 BMLR 176.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369324522764

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In an emergency, it would appear from the decision of [case], that once treatment has been undertaken by a medical professional, a duty of care is owed. This obviously applies mostly to those entering Accident & Emergency Departments.
Answer
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] 1 QB 428


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In an emergency, it would appear from the decision of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] 1 QB 428, that once treatment has been undertaken by a medical professional, a duty of care is owed. This obviously applies mostly to those entering Accident & Emergency Departments.<

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369326882060

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In an emergency, it would appear from the decision of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] 1 QB 428, that [...]. This obviously applies mostly to those entering Accident & Emergency Departments.
Answer
once treatment has been undertaken by a medical professional, a duty of care is owed


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In an emergency, it would appear from the decision of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] 1 QB 428, that once treatment has been undertaken by a medical professional, a duty of care is owed. This obviously applies mostly to those entering Accident & Emergency Departments.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369328454924

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It would appear that the courts do not share the same jocular approach to the ability of doctors to write clearly as that of the general public. In [case] a doctor was found to be jointly liable, along with a pharmacist, for the incorrect dispensing of a drug. This had occurred, largely, because the doctor’s handwriting could not be deciphered.
Answer
Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd [1989] 1 Med LR 36


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It would appear that the courts do not share the same jocular approach to the ability of doctors to write clearly as that of the general public. In Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd [1989] 1 Med LR 36 a doctor was found to be jointly liable, along with a pharmacist, for the incorrect dispensing of a drug. This had occurred, largely, because the doctor’s handwriting could not be deciph

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369330814220

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It would appear that the courts do not share the same jocular approach to the ability of doctors to write clearly as that of the general public. In Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd [1989] 1 Med LR 36 a doctor was found to be [...]. This had occurred, largely, because the doctor’s handwriting could not be deciphered.
Answer
jointly liable, along with a pharmacist, for the incorrect dispensing of a drug


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
>It would appear that the courts do not share the same jocular approach to the ability of doctors to write clearly as that of the general public. In Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd [1989] 1 Med LR 36 a doctor was found to be jointly liable, along with a pharmacist, for the incorrect dispensing of a drug. This had occurred, largely, because the doctor’s handwriting could not be deciphered.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369332387084

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It would appear that the courts do not share the same jocular approach to the ability of doctors to write clearly as that of the general public. In Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd [1989] 1 Med LR 36 a doctor was found to be jointly liable, along with a pharmacist, for the incorrect dispensing of a drug. This had occurred, largely, because [...].
Answer
the doctor’s handwriting could not be deciphered


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
o write clearly as that of the general public. In Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd [1989] 1 Med LR 36 a doctor was found to be jointly liable, along with a pharmacist, for the incorrect dispensing of a drug. This had occurred, largely, because <span>the doctor’s handwriting could not be deciphered.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369333959948

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In professional negligence cases the reasonable man test (as illustrated in Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2QB 691, the ‘learner driver’ case) is slightly modified. In order to show a breach of duty, the claimant must first establish the standard of care that the doctor (for example) owes. The test utilised was actually developed in relation to clinical negligence but has been subsequently accepted to cover anyone exercising professional skills. This principle has become known as the Bolam test after the case [case].
Answer
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
for example) owes. The test utilised was actually developed in relation to clinical negligence but has been subsequently accepted to cover anyone exercising professional skills. This principle has become known as the Bolam test after the case <span>Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369337892108

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
According to [case] (above) potentially, a health authority could be liable for putting a junior doctor in a situation with little or no supervision. With regards to the standard expected from consultants see Ashcroft v Mersey RHA [1983] 2 All ER 245.
Answer
Bull and Another v Devon AHA [1993]


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
According to Bull and Another v Devon AHA [1993] (above) potentially, a health authority could be liable for putting a junior doctor in a situation with little or no supervision. With regards to the standard expected from consultants s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369340251404

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
According to Bull and Another v Devon AHA [1993] (above) potentially, a health authority could be liable for putting a junior doctor in a situation with little or no supervision. With regards to the standard expected from consultants see [...].
Answer
Ashcroft v Mersey RHA [1983] 2 All ER 245


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
span>According to Bull and Another v Devon AHA [1993] (above) potentially, a health authority could be liable for putting a junior doctor in a situation with little or no supervision. With regards to the standard expected from consultants see <span>Ashcroft v Mersey RHA [1983] 2 All ER 245.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369343397132

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A professional, like a doctor, must meet the standard of care expected of their rank/post. The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is [case]
Answer
Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A professional, like a doctor, must meet the standard of care expected of their rank/post. The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369345756428

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A professional, like a doctor, must meet the standard of care expected of [...]. The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801
Answer
their rank/post


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A professional, like a doctor, must meet the standard of care expected of their rank/post. The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369348377868

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801
Answer
A junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As Glidewell LJ stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801 in which a junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Ap

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369350737164

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801 in which a junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As [who] stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.
Answer
Glidewell LJ


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As <span>Glidewell LJ stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligen

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369353096460

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801 in which a junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As Glidewell LJ stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if [...] (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.
Answer
they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if <span>they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369354669324

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801 in which a junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As Glidewell LJ stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then [...].
Answer
fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then <span>fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369356242188

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801 in which a junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As Glidewell LJ stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘[...]’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.
Answer
….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ndness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As Glidewell LJ stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘<span>….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact,

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369357815052

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In [case] the House of Lords refused to become entangled in choosing one professional opinion over another. In such situations, the Bolam test states that a doctor has to act in accordance with a practice that is accepted by a reasonable body of medical opinion. It is perfectly valid to have conflicting professional opinions.
Answer
Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634 the House of Lords refused to become entangled in choosing one professional opinion over another. In such situations, the Bolam test states that a doctor has to act in accordance with a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369360174348

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634 the House of Lords refused to become entangled in choosing one professional opinion over another. In such situations, the Bolam test states that a doctor has to act [...]. It is perfectly valid to have conflicting professional opinions.
Answer
in accordance with a practice that is accepted by a reasonable body of medical opinion


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
head><head>In Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634 the House of Lords refused to become entangled in choosing one professional opinion over another. In such situations, the Bolam test states that a doctor has to act in accordance with a practice that is accepted by a reasonable body of medical opinion. It is perfectly valid to have conflicting professional opinions.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369361747212

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The court has to be satisfied that the exponents of the body of opinion relied upon can demonstrate that such opinion has a logical basis.
Answer
Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Although it is accepted that the judiciary are reluctant to choose one medical body’s opinion over another, the case of Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771, has modified the Bolam test to a degree. Bolitho was a clinical negligence case that reached the House of Lords. The central legal issue was whether or not non-intervention by a doctor

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369364106508

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Although it is accepted that the judiciary are reluctant to choose one medical body’s opinion over another, the case of Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771, has modified the Bolam test to a degree. Bolitho was a clinical negligence case that reached the House of Lords. The central legal issue was whether or not non-intervention by a doctor caused the plaintiff’s injury. The speech by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in the leading judgment, has potential implications for the way in which the Bolam test might be interpreted in the future. In giving judgment, Lord Browne- Wilkinson said:

The court has to be satisfied that the exponents of the body of opinion relied upon can [...]. In particular, in cases involving, as they so often do, the weighing of risks against benefits, the judge before accepting a body of opinion as being responsible, reasonable or respectable, will need to be satisfied that, in forming their views, the experts have directed their minds to the question of comparative risks and benefits and have reached a defensible conclusion on the matter

Answer
demonstrate that such opinion has a logical basis


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
tential implications for the way in which the Bolam test might be interpreted in the future. In giving judgment, Lord Browne- Wilkinson said: The court has to be satisfied that the exponents of the body of opinion relied upon can <span>demonstrate that such opinion has a logical basis. In particular, in cases involving, as they so often do, the weighing of risks against benefits, the judge before accepting a body of opinion as being responsible, reasonable or respect

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369365679372

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Although it is accepted that the judiciary are reluctant to choose one medical body’s opinion over another, the case of Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771, has modified the Bolam test to a degree. Bolitho was a clinical negligence case that reached the House of Lords. The central legal issue was whether or not non-intervention by a doctor caused the plaintiff’s injury. The speech by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in the leading judgment, has potential implications for the way in which the Bolam test might be interpreted in the future. In giving judgment, Lord Browne- Wilkinson said:

The court has to be satisfied that the exponents of the body of opinion relied upon can demonstrate that such opinion has a logical basis. In particular, in cases involving, as they so often do, the weighing of risks against benefits, the judge before accepting a body of opinion as being responsible, reasonable or respectable, will need to be satisfied that, in forming their views, the experts have [...] on the matter

Answer
directed their minds to the question of comparative risks and benefits and have reached a defensible conclusion


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ses involving, as they so often do, the weighing of risks against benefits, the judge before accepting a body of opinion as being responsible, reasonable or respectable, will need to be satisfied that, in forming their views, the experts have <span>directed their minds to the question of comparative risks and benefits and have reached a defensible conclusion on the matter <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369367514380

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The Bolam test has been applied to the standard of handwriting on a prescription
Answer
Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd, The Times, 24 March 1988


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Bolam test has been applied to the standard of handwriting on a prescription (Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd, The Times, 24 March 1988); the use of alternative medicine (Shakoor v Situ [2000] 4 All ER 181) and experimental medicine (Simms v Simms [2003] 1 All ER

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369369873676

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The Bolam test has been applied to the use of alternative medicine
Answer
Shakoor v Situ [2000] 4 All ER 181


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Bolam test has been applied to the standard of handwriting on a prescription (Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd, The Times, 24 March 1988); the use of alternative medicine (Shakoor v Situ [2000] 4 All ER 181) and experimental medicine (Simms v Simms [2003] 1 All ER 669).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369372232972

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The Bolam test has been applied to the use of experimental medicine
Answer
Simms v Simms [2003] 1 All ER 669


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ad><head>The Bolam test has been applied to the standard of handwriting on a prescription (Prendergast v Sam & Dee Ltd, The Times, 24 March 1988); the use of alternative medicine (Shakoor v Situ [2000] 4 All ER 181) and experimental medicine (Simms v Simms [2003] 1 All ER 669).<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369374592268

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
An obvious lapse of professional standards will, however, occur if a professional simply overlooks a well-known procedure or technique.
Answer
White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An obvious lapse of professional standards will, however, occur if a professional simply overlooks a well-known procedure or technique. As we have already seen in Chapter 3, in White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 a solicitor was found negligent in delaying the drawing up of a will with the result that beneficiaries were exclud

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369378262284

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It should be noted that in Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, as in previous exceptional cases, such as Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613, it was not possible to scientifically prove the contribution made by the negligence so [...]. It is likely that the strict application of the ’but for’ test will still be used in the majority of cases involving medical negligence.
Answer
a departure of the ’but for’ test was used to achieve justice


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
noted that in Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, as in previous exceptional cases, such as Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613, it was not possible to scientifically prove the contribution made by the negligence so <span>a departure of the ’but for’ test was used to achieve justice. It is likely that the strict application of the ’but for’ test will still be used in the majority of cases involving medical negligence.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369379835148

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It should be noted that in Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, as in previous exceptional cases, such as Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613, it was not possible to scientifically prove the contribution made by the negligence so a departure of the ’but for’ test was used to [...]. It is likely that the strict application of the ’but for’ test will still be used in the majority of cases involving medical negligence.
Answer
achieve justice


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
008] EWCA Civ 883, as in previous exceptional cases, such as Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613, it was not possible to scientifically prove the contribution made by the negligence so a departure of the ’but for’ test was used to <span>achieve justice. It is likely that the strict application of the ’but for’ test will still be used in the majority of cases involving medical negligence.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369381408012

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It should be noted that in [case], as in previous exceptional cases, such as Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613, it was not possible to scientifically prove the contribution made by the negligence so a departure of the ’but for’ test was used to achieve justice. It is likely that the strict application of the ’but for’ test will still be used in the majority of cases involving medical negligence.
Answer
Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It should be noted that in Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, as in previous exceptional cases, such as Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613, it was not possible to scientifically prove the contribution made by the negligence so a depa

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369383767308

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It should be noted that in Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, as in previous exceptional cases, such as [case], it was not possible to scientifically prove the contribution made by the negligence so a departure of the ’but for’ test was used to achieve justice. It is likely that the strict application of the ’but for’ test will still be used in the majority of cases involving medical negligence.
Answer
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It should be noted that in Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, as in previous exceptional cases, such as Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613, it was not possible to scientifically prove the contribution made by the negligence so a departure of the ’but for’ test was used to achieve justice. It is likely that the strict appli

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369386126604

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883
Answer
The respondent had a cardiac arrest and brain damage after choking on her vomit. The judge had found that the physical cause of the cardiac arrest was the appellant’s weakness and inability to react to her vomit. This weakness was caused partly by the appellant’s lack of post-operative care and partly by a non-negligent cause – the pancreatitis from which she had been suffering. In finding for the respondent the Court of Appeal held: In a case where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed. The instant case involved cumulative causes acting so as to create a weakness and thus the judge had applied the right test and was entitled to reach the conclusion he had reached.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In a more recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, however, the courts have shown that in exceptional circumstances they are prepared to depart from the strict application of the ‘but for’ test. The respondent had a cardiac arrest and

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369388485900

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In a more recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, however, the courts have shown that [when] they are prepared to depart from the strict application of the ‘but for’ test. The respondent had a cardiac arrest and brain damage after choking on her vomit. The judge had found that the physical cause of the cardiac arrest was the appellant’s weakness and inability to react to her vomit. This weakness was caused partly by the appellant’s lack of post-operative care and partly by a non-negligent cause – the pancreatitis from which she had been suffering. In finding for the respondent the Court of Appeal held: In a case where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed. The instant case involved cumulative causes acting so as to create a weakness and thus the judge had applied the right test and was entitled to reach the conclusion he had reached.
Answer
in exceptional circumstances


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In a more recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, however, the courts have shown that in exceptional circumstances they are prepared to depart from the strict application of the ‘but for’ test. The respondent had a cardiac arrest and brain damage after choking on her vomit. The judge had found that t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369390845196

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In a more recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, however, the courts have shown that in exceptional circumstances they are prepared to [...]. The respondent had a cardiac arrest and brain damage after choking on her vomit. The judge had found that the physical cause of the cardiac arrest was the appellant’s weakness and inability to react to her vomit. This weakness was caused partly by the appellant’s lack of post-operative care and partly by a non-negligent cause – the pancreatitis from which she had been suffering. In finding for the respondent the Court of Appeal held: In a case where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed. The instant case involved cumulative causes acting so as to create a weakness and thus the judge had applied the right test and was entitled to reach the conclusion he had reached.
Answer
depart from the strict application of the ‘but for’ test


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In a more recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, however, the courts have shown that in exceptional circumstances they are prepared to depart from the strict application of the ‘but for’ test. The respondent had a cardiac arrest and brain damage after choking on her vomit. The judge had found that the physical cause of the cardiac arrest was the appellant’s weakness and inab

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369392418060

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In a more recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, however, the courts have shown that in exceptional circumstances they are prepared to depart from the strict application of the ‘but for’ test. The respondent had a cardiac arrest and brain damage after choking on her vomit. The judge had found that the physical cause of the cardiac arrest was the appellant’s weakness and inability to react to her vomit. This weakness was caused partly by the appellant’s lack of post-operative care and partly by a non-negligent cause – the pancreatitis from which she had been suffering. In finding for the respondent the Court of Appeal held: In a case where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but could establish that [...], the ‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed. The instant case involved cumulative causes acting so as to create a weakness and thus the judge had applied the right test and was entitled to reach the conclusion he had reached.
Answer
the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
had been suffering. In finding for the respondent the Court of Appeal held: In a case where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but could establish that <span>the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed. The instant case involved cumulative causes acting so as to create a weakness and thus the judge had applied the righ

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369393990924

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In a more recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, however, the courts have shown that in exceptional circumstances they are prepared to depart from the strict application of the ‘but for’ test. The respondent had a cardiac arrest and brain damage after choking on her vomit. The judge had found that the physical cause of the cardiac arrest was the appellant’s weakness and inability to react to her vomit. This weakness was caused partly by the appellant’s lack of post-operative care and partly by a non-negligent cause – the pancreatitis from which she had been suffering. In finding for the respondent the Court of Appeal held: In a case where medical science could not [...] but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed. The instant case involved cumulative causes acting so as to create a weakness and thus the judge had applied the right test and was entitled to reach the conclusion he had reached.
Answer
establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
partly by the appellant’s lack of post-operative care and partly by a non-negligent cause – the pancreatitis from which she had been suffering. In finding for the respondent the Court of Appeal held: In a case where medical science could not <span>establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed. The instant case involved cu

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369395563788

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In a more recent case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, however, the courts have shown that in exceptional circumstances they are prepared to depart from the strict application of the ‘but for’ test. The respondent had a cardiac arrest and brain damage after choking on her vomit. The judge had found that the physical cause of the cardiac arrest was the appellant’s weakness and inability to react to her vomit. This weakness was caused partly by the appellant’s lack of post-operative care and partly by a non-negligent cause – the pancreatitis from which she had been suffering. In finding for the respondent the Court of Appeal held: In a case where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the [result]. The instant case involved cumulative causes acting so as to create a weakness and thus the judge had applied the right test and was entitled to reach the conclusion he had reached.
Answer
‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
held: In a case where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘’but for’’ an act of negligence the injury would not have happened but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the <span>‘’but for’’ test was modified, and the claimant would succeed. The instant case involved cumulative causes acting so as to create a weakness and thus the judge had applied the right test and was entitled to reach the conclusion he had reached.</sp

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369397923084

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Whitehouse v Jordan [1980] 1 All ER 650
Answer
A senior registrar performed a caesarean section after unsuccessfully trying to deliver the child by forceps. He had pulled on the baby six times over a 25 minute period. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision of negligence. A distinction had to be made between an error of judgement and actual negligence. As Lord Fraser stated:

Merely to describe something as an error of judgement tells us nothing about whether it is negligent or not. The true position is that an error of judgement may, or may not, be negligent; it depends on the nature of the error. If it is one that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having, and acting with ordinary care, then it is negligent. If, on the other hand, it is an error that a man with ordinary care might have made, then it is not negligence.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Whitehouse v Jordan [1980] 1 All ER 650, a senior registrar performed a caesarean section after unsuccessfully trying to deliver the child by forceps. He had pulled on the baby six times over a 25 minute period. The Court of

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369400282380

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In Whitehouse v Jordan [1980] 1 All ER 650, a senior registrar performed a caesarean section after unsuccessfully trying to deliver the child by forceps. He had pulled on the baby six times over a 25 minute period. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision of negligence. A distinction had to be made between an error of judgement and actual negligence. As Lord Fraser stated:

Merely to describe something as an error of judgement tells us nothing about whether it is negligent or not. The true position is that an error of judgement may, or may not, be negligent; it depends on the nature of the error. If it is one [...], then it is negligent. If, on the other hand, it is an error that a man with ordinary care might have made, then it is not negligence.

Answer
that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having, and acting with ordinary care


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
; Merely to describe something as an error of judgement tells us nothing about whether it is negligent or not. The true position is that an error of judgement may, or may not, be negligent; it depends on the nature of the error. If it is one <span>that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having, and acting with ordinary care, then it is negligent. If, on the other hand, it is an error that a man with ordinary care might have made, then it is not negligence. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369401855244

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In Whitehouse v Jordan [1980] 1 All ER 650, a senior registrar performed a caesarean section after unsuccessfully trying to deliver the child by forceps. He had pulled on the baby six times over a 25 minute period. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision of negligence. A distinction had to be made between an error of judgement and actual negligence. As Lord Fraser stated:

Merely to describe something as an error of judgement tells us nothing about whether it is negligent or not. The true position is that an error of judgement may, or may not, be negligent; it depends on the nature of the error. If it is one that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having, and acting with ordinary care, then [...]. If, on the other hand, it is an error that a man with ordinary care might have made, then it is not negligence.

Answer
it is negligent


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
he nature of the error. If it is one that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having, and acting with ordinary care, then <span>it is negligent. If, on the other hand, it is an error that a man with ordinary care might have made, then it is not negligence. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369403428108

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In Whitehouse v Jordan [1980] 1 All ER 650, a senior registrar performed a caesarean section after unsuccessfully trying to deliver the child by forceps. He had pulled on the baby six times over a 25 minute period. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision of negligence. A distinction had to be made between an error of judgement and actual negligence. As Lord Fraser stated:

Merely to describe something as an error of judgement tells us nothing about whether it is negligent or not. The true position is that an error of judgement may, or may not, be negligent; it depends on the nature of the error. If it is one that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having, and acting with ordinary care, then it is negligent. If, on the other hand, [...].

Answer
it is an error that a man with ordinary care might have made, then it is not negligence


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having, and acting with ordinary care, then it is negligent. If, on the other hand, <span>it is an error that a man with ordinary care might have made, then it is not negligence. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369405000972

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In Whitehouse v Jordan [1980] 1 All ER 650, a senior registrar performed a caesarean section after unsuccessfully trying to deliver the child by forceps. He had pulled on the baby six times over a 25 minute period. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision of negligence. A distinction had to be made between an error of judgement and actual negligence. As Lord Fraser stated:

Merely to describe something as an error of judgement tells us nothing about whether it is negligent or not. The true position is that [...]; it depends on the nature of the error. If it is one that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having, and acting with ordinary care, then it is negligent. If, on the other hand, it is an error that a man with ordinary care might have made, then it is not negligence.

Answer
an error of judgement may, or may not, be negligent


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ion had to be made between an error of judgement and actual negligence. As Lord Fraser stated: Merely to describe something as an error of judgement tells us nothing about whether it is negligent or not. The true position is that <span>an error of judgement may, or may not, be negligent; it depends on the nature of the error. If it is one that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369406835980

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The recent decision in [case] is one of the rare cases where a court has applied the Bolitho test to reject expert opinion as not being logically defensible.
Answer
Taaffe v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 1335 (QB)


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The recent decision in Taaffe v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 1335 (QB) is one of the rare cases where a court has applied the Bolitho test to reject expert opinion as not being logically defensible.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369409195276

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
What is clear is that such a body does not have to [...]. In De Freitas v O’Brien and Connolly [1995] 6 Med LR 108 the body of medical opinion (concerning a particular medical procedure, a niche area of surgery) consisted of 11 consultants out of over 1000.
Answer
represent the majority of opinion, merely an acceptable body


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
What is clear is that such a body does not have to represent the majority of opinion, merely an acceptable body. In De Freitas v O’Brien and Connolly [1995] 6 Med LR 108 the body of medical opinion (concerning a particular medical procedure, a niche area of surgery) consisted of 11 consultants ou

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369410768140

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
What is clear is that such a body does not have to represent the majority of opinion, merely an acceptable body
Answer
De Freitas v O’Brien and Connolly [1995] 6 Med LR 108


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
What is clear is that such a body does not have to represent the majority of opinion, merely an acceptable body. In De Freitas v O’Brien and Connolly [1995] 6 Med LR 108 the body of medical opinion (concerning a particular medical procedure, a niche area of surgery) consisted of 11 consultants ou

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369413127436

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
What is clear is that such a body does not have to represent the majority of opinion, merely an acceptable body. In De Freitas v O’Brien and Connolly [1995] 6 Med LR 108 the body of medical opinion (concerning a particular medical procedure, a niche area of surgery) consisted of [...].
Answer
11 consultants out of over 1000


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
s not have to represent the majority of opinion, merely an acceptable body. In De Freitas v O’Brien and Connolly [1995] 6 Med LR 108 the body of medical opinion (concerning a particular medical procedure, a niche area of surgery) consisted of <span>11 consultants out of over 1000.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369414962444

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It is well established within the professional/client relationship that a duty of care exists. It is clear from many authorities that a doctor owes his/her patient a duty of care in the normal course of events. For example, in [case] Lord Denning clearly stated that such a duty existed.
Answer
Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ody>It is well established within the professional/client relationship that a duty of care exists. It is clear from many authorities that a doctor owes his/her patient a duty of care in the normal course of events. For example, in Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 Lord Denning clearly stated that such a duty existed.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369417321740

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It is well established within the [...] that a duty of care exists. It is clear from many authorities that a doctor owes his/her patient a duty of care in the normal course of events. For example, in Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 Lord Denning clearly stated that such a duty existed.
Answer
professional/client relationship


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It is well established within the professional/client relationship that a duty of care exists. It is clear from many authorities that a doctor owes his/her patient a duty of care in the normal course of events. For example, in Cassidy v Minister of Heal

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369418894604

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A doctor owes his/her patient a duty of care in the normal course of events
Answer
Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ody>It is well established within the professional/client relationship that a duty of care exists. It is clear from many authorities that a doctor owes his/her patient a duty of care in the normal course of events. For example, in Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 Lord Denning clearly stated that such a duty existed.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369422302476

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The term ‘professional negligence’ refers to [...].
Answer
negligence arising within a professional sphere, such as the activities of accountants, lawyers, surveyors and architects


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The term ‘professional negligence’ refers to negligence arising within a professional sphere, such as the activities of accountants, lawyers, surveyors and architects.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369424923916

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Clinical negligence refers [...]
Answer
not only to the negligence of doctors but to all the related medical professionals and services, such as nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physiotherapists and ambulance services.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Clinical negligence refers not only to the negligence of doctors but to all the related medical professionals and services, such as nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physiotherapists and ambulance services.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369427545356

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test from [case]; ‘but for’ the defendant’s action, would the victim have suffered the injury.
Answer
Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test from Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402; ‘but for’ the defendant’s action, would the victim have suffered the injury.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369433574668

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A clear illustration of the 'but for' test in a clinical context can be seen in the case of [case].
Answer
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 4282


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A clear illustration of the 'but for' test in a clinical context can be seen in the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 4282.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369437768972

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 4282
Answer
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 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 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).


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369440128268

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 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 defendant was, therefore, [...].
Answer
not liable (despite the hospital admitting the existence of a duty and that such a duty had been breached by the doctor)


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t for’ test the court held 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 defendant was, therefore, <span>not liable (despite the hospital admitting the existence of a duty and that such a duty had been breached by the doctor).<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369441701132

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


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

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







Flashcard 1369443273996

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 it had not. [reasoning]. 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
The man would have died anyway, regardless of any examination by the doctor


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 it had not. <span>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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369445633292

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
In [case], the claimant suffered Brachial Palsy whilst having a blood transfusion during surgery. His argument was that the anaesthetist should have been aware of such a risk from an article in the Lancet published six months earlier. The court rejected the claim for negligence. It would be both impractical and unrealistic to expect a professional to know every new development in his/her field at any given moment in time.
Answer
Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital, The Times, 8 December 1983


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital, The Times, 8 December 1983, the claimant suffered Brachial Palsy whilst having a blood transfusion during surgery. His argument was that the anaesthetist should have been aware of such a risk from an article in t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369447992588

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A professional is not expected to know every new development in his/her field at any given moment in time.
Answer
Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital, The Times, 8 December 1983


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital, The Times, 8 December 1983, the claimant suffered Brachial Palsy whilst having a blood transfusion during surgery. His argument was that the anaesthetist should have been aware of such a risk from an article in t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369450351884

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Despite what many might believe, experts are not expected to know every new idea, practice or latest developments within their specialism. As McNair J, stated in Bolam:

It is sufficient if he exercises [...].

Answer
the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ad><head>Despite what many might believe, experts are not expected to know every new idea, practice or latest developments within their specialism. As McNair J, stated in Bolam: It is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art. <html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369451924748

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Obviously each case will turn on its own facts and, therefore, there may be cases where the risk of harm can be appreciated. In N v United Kingdom Medical Research Council; Sub Nom Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Litigation [1996] the court held there was negligence in failing to carry out a full clinical appraisal with the use of Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and its causational relationship with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [resoning].
Answer
Such a link had emerged from CJD cases from 1977 onwards


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Nom Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Litigation [1996] the court held there was negligence in failing to carry out a full clinical appraisal with the use of Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and its causational relationship with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. <span>Such a link had emerged from CJD cases from 1977 onwards.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369454284044

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Obviously each case will turn on its own facts and, therefore, there may be cases where the risk of harm can be appreciated. In [case] the court held there was negligence in failing to carry out a full clinical appraisal with the use of Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and its causational relationship with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Such a link had emerged from CJD cases from 1977 onwards.
Answer
N v United Kingdom Medical Research Council; Sub Nom Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Litigation [1996]


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Obviously each case will turn on its own facts and, therefore, there may be cases where the risk of harm can be appreciated. In N v United Kingdom Medical Research Council; Sub Nom Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Litigation [1996] the court held there was negligence in failing to carry out a full clinical appraisal with the use of Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and its causational relationship with Creutzfeldt-Jakob d

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369457691916

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Unforeseeable risks can obviously not be anticipated and, therefore, failing to guard against them will not be regarded as negligence. This is often referred to as the State of Art issue and is probably best illustrated in [case].
Answer
Roe v Minister Of Health [1954] 2 QB 66


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
d>Unforeseeable risks can obviously not be anticipated and, therefore, failing to guard against them will not be regarded as negligence. This is often referred to as the State of Art issue and is probably best illustrated in Roe v Minister Of Health [1954] 2 QB 66.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369460051212

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Unforeseeable risks can obviously not be anticipated and, therefore, [...]. This is often referred to as the State of Art issue and is probably best illustrated in Roe v Minister Of Health [1954] 2 QB 66.
Answer
failing to guard against them will not be regarded as negligence


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Unforeseeable risks can obviously not be anticipated and, therefore, failing to guard against them will not be regarded as negligence. This is often referred to as the State of Art issue and is probably best illustrated in Roe v Minister Of Health [1954] 2 QB 66.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369462672652

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Roe v Minister Of Health [1954] 2 QB 66
Answer
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, they escaped liability for negligence.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 am

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369465031948

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


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

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







Flashcard 1369466604812

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A justification for the Bolam rule was given by Lord Scarman in [case]. He stated:

Differences of opinion exist, and continue to exist, in the medical as in other professions. There is seldom any one answer exclusive of all others to problems of professional judgment. A court may prefer one body of opinion to the other; but that is no basis for a conclusion of negligence.

Answer
Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A justification for the Bolam rule was given by Lord Scarman in Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634. He stated: Differences of opinion exist, and continue to exist, in the medical as in other professions. There is seldom any one answer exclusive of all others to problems of profe

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369470536972

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A justification for the Bolam rule was given by [who] in Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634. He stated:

Differences of opinion exist, and continue to exist, in the medical as in other professions. There is seldom any one answer exclusive of all others to problems of professional judgment. A court may prefer one body of opinion to the other; but that is no basis for a conclusion of negligence.

Answer
Lord Scarman


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A justification for the Bolam rule was given by Lord Scarman in Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634. He stated: Differences of opinion exist, and continue to exist, in the medical as in other professions. There is seldom any

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369473682700

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A justification for the Bolam rule was given by Lord Scarman in Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1985] 1 WLR 634. He stated:

Differences of opinion exist, and continue to exist, in the medical as in other professions. There is seldom any one answer exclusive of all others to problems of professional judgment. A court may prefer one body of opinion to the other; but [...].

Answer
that is no basis for a conclusion of negligence


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Differences of opinion exist, and continue to exist, in the medical as in other professions. There is seldom any one answer exclusive of all others to problems of professional judgment. A court may prefer one body of opinion to the other; but <span>that is no basis for a conclusion of negligence. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369476304140

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p Child B (a minor) [1995] 6 Med LR 250
Answer
A local health authority declined to continue further experimental treatment on a young girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the chances of success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated, to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to provide every treatment available would be unreasonable. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for medical professionals and not the courts.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p Child B (a minor) [1995] 6 Med LR 250, a local health authority declined to continue further experimental treatment on a young girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the c

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369478663436

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p Child B (a minor) [1995] 6 Med LR 250, a local health authority declined to continue further experimental treatment on a young girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the chances of success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated, [...]. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for medical professionals and not the courts.
Answer
to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to provide every treatment available would be unreasonable


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
to continue further experimental treatment on a young girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the chances of success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated, <span>to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to provide every treatment available would be unreasonable. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for medical professionals and not the courts.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369480236300

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p Child B (a minor) [1995] 6 Med LR 250, a local health authority declined to continue further experimental treatment on a young girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the chances of success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As [who] stated, to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to provide every treatment available would be unreasonable. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for medical professionals and not the courts.
Answer
Sir Thomas Bingham MR


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
cal health authority declined to continue further experimental treatment on a young girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the chances of success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As <span>Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated, to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to provide every treatment available would be unreasonable. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for medical professional

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369482595596

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p Child B (a minor) [1995] 6 Med LR 250, a local health authority declined to continue further experimental treatment on a young girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the chances of success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated, to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to provide every treatment available would be unreasonable. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for [...].
Answer
medical professionals and not the courts


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
f success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated, to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to provide every treatment available would be unreasonable. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for <span>medical professionals and not the courts.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369484430604

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
A failure to provide doctors or services of a sufficient level of competence could be regarded as a breach of the duty of care (2)
Answer
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 and Griffiths v Kent Ambulance Service (1999) Lloyd’s Rep Med


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
uty to provide the services of medical professionals with sufficient skill and experience. In both Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 and Griffiths v Kent Ambulance Service (1999) Lloyd’s Rep Med, the courts have stated that <span>a failure to provide doctors or services of a sufficient level of competence could be regarded as a breach of the duty of care (also see Bull v Devon AHA [1993] 4 Med LR 117 and Ball v Wirral Health Authority & Another [2003] All ER (D) 229 (Jan)).<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369486789900

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
It is not only the individual professionals but, for example, Health Authorities/Trusts also have a duty to [...]. In both Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 and Griffiths v Kent Ambulance Service (1999) Lloyd’s Rep Med, the courts have stated that a failure to provide doctors or services of a sufficient level of competence could be regarded as a breach of the duty of care (also see Bull v Devon AHA [1993] 4 Med LR 117 and Ball v Wirral Health Authority & Another [2003] All ER (D) 229 (Jan)).
Answer
provide the services of medical professionals with sufficient skill and experience


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It is not only the individual professionals but, for example, Health Authorities/Trusts also have a duty to provide the services of medical professionals with sufficient skill and experience. In both Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 and Griffiths v Kent Ambulance Service (1999) Lloyd’s Rep Med, the courts have stated that a failure to provide doctors or

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369488887052

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
There is no recovery in medical negligence cases for loss of less than even chance of a better recovery.
Answer
Wright (A Child) v Cambridge Medical Group (a partnership) [2011] EWCA Civ 669


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Court of Appeal in this case also applied the previous decision in Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2 on recovery for loss of chance. There is no recovery in medical negligence cases for loss of less than even chance of a better recovery.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369491246348

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
Wright (A Child) v Cambridge Medical Group (a partnership) [2011] EWCA Civ 669.
Answer
The defendant, a GP, negligently failed to refer a child claimant with a bacterial infection to hospital until two days later. It took a further three days in hospital before the claimant was correctly diagnosed, by which time her hip became infected resulting in a permanent disability. The defendant argued that his negligence was not the factual cause of the claimant’s loss as even if she had been admitted to hospital on time there would still have been a three day delay in the correct treatment being given. The claimant would still, therefore, have suffered the same disability. The Court of Appeal held that where a doctor had negligently failed to refer a patient to hospital and, as a consequence, she had lost the opportunity to be treated correctly, the doctor could not escape liability by establishing that the hospital would have negligently failed to treat the patient appropriately, even if promptly referred.


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The courts took a similarly flexible approach in Wright (A Child) v Cambridge Medical Group (a partnership) [2011] EWCA Civ 669. The defendant, a GP, negligently failed to refer a child claimant with a bacterial infection to hospital until two days later. It took a further three days in hospital before the claiman

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369493605644

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The courts took a similarly flexible approach in Wright (A Child) v Cambridge Medical Group (a partnership) [2011] EWCA Civ 669. The defendant, a GP, negligently failed to refer a child claimant with a bacterial infection to hospital until two days later. It took a further three days in hospital before the claimant was correctly diagnosed, by which time her hip became infected resulting in a permanent disability. The defendant argued that his negligence was not the factual cause of the claimant’s loss as [...]. The claimant would still, therefore, have suffered the same disability. The Court of Appeal held that where a doctor had negligently failed to refer a patient to hospital and, as a consequence, she had lost the opportunity to be treated correctly, the doctor could not escape liability by establishing that the hospital would have negligently failed to treat the patient appropriately, even if promptly referred.
Answer
even if she had been admitted to hospital on time there would still have been a three day delay in the correct treatment being given


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
urther three days in hospital before the claimant was correctly diagnosed, by which time her hip became infected resulting in a permanent disability. The defendant argued that his negligence was not the factual cause of the claimant’s loss as <span>even if she had been admitted to hospital on time there would still have been a three day delay in the correct treatment being given. The claimant would still, therefore, have suffered the same disability. The Court of Appeal held that where a doctor had negligently failed to refer a patient to hospital and, as a con

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369495178508

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The courts took a similarly flexible approach in Wright (A Child) v Cambridge Medical Group (a partnership) [2011] EWCA Civ 669. The defendant, a GP, negligently failed to refer a child claimant with a bacterial infection to hospital until two days later. It took a further three days in hospital before the claimant was correctly diagnosed, by which time her hip became infected resulting in a permanent disability. The defendant argued that his negligence was not the factual cause of the claimant’s loss as even if she had been admitted to hospital on time there would still have been a three day delay in the correct treatment being given. The claimant would still, therefore, have suffered the same disability. The Court of Appeal held that [...].
Answer
where a doctor had negligently failed to refer a patient to hospital and, as a consequence, she had lost the opportunity to be treated correctly, the doctor could not escape liability by establishing that the hospital would have negligently failed to treat the patient appropriately, even if promptly referred


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
oss as even if she had been admitted to hospital on time there would still have been a three day delay in the correct treatment being given. The claimant would still, therefore, have suffered the same disability. The Court of Appeal held that <span>where a doctor had negligently failed to refer a patient to hospital and, as a consequence, she had lost the opportunity to be treated correctly, the doctor could not escape liability by establishing that the hospital would have negligently failed to treat the patient appropriately, even if promptly referred.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369751817484

Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p Child B (a minor) [1995] 6 Med LR 250, a local health authority declined to continue further experimental treatment on a young girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the chances of success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated, to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to [...] would be unreasonable. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for medical professionals and not the courts.
Answer
provide every treatment available


statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
g girl dying of myeloid leukaemia. The cost of the treatment was estimated at £75,000 whilst the chances of success were between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. As Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated, to impose an absolute duty on a health authority to <span>provide every treatment available would be unreasonable. Clinical decisions as to treatment should be for medical professionals and not the courts.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs