Medical Negligence

?
  • Created by: Owais360
  • Created on: 01-04-14 17:58
View mindmap
  • Medical Negligence
    • Breach
      • THE STANDARD
        • BLYTHE V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS
          • 'Reasonable man test'
            • The defendant will be judged against a reasonable man in the same circumstance
      • Experts
        • BOLAM
          • A medical professional is not guilty if he has acted according to a practice accepted as proper bya reasonable body of medical men.
      • Learners
        • NETTLESHIP V WESTON
          • Learners drivers are expected to reach the same standard as experienced drivers
      • Risk Factors
        • DEGREE OF RISK
          • HALEY V LEB
            • Blind man tripped and fell in hole. Should have took blind people into account.
        • COST AND PRACTICALITY OF AVOIDING THE RISK
          • BOLTON V STONE
            • No breach of duty as defendant had taken reasonable precautions
        • POTENTIAL HARM
          • PARIS V STEPNEY BC
            • The employer should have provided goggles as the harm was greater to someone with one eye.
        • SOCIAL BENEFITS OF TAKING THE RISK
          • WATT V HERTS CC
            • The utility of saving a life outweighed the need to take precautions.
    • Res Ipsa Loquiter- ALT Method to prove breach
      • ONLY USE THIS IF C DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED
        • Scott v London & St Katherine's Dock.
          • 1) Activity was under  D's control
            • 2) There was negligence involved.
    • Causes/Damage
      • Barnett v Chelsea
        • BUT FOR TEST
          • Would result have occurred 'but for' the D's conduct?
      • Wilsher v Essex AHA
        • There were multiple possible causes of the consequnce.
      • The Wagon Mound
        • The damage to the buildings was too remote a consequence when the oil leaked and got ignited by the welders
      • Smith v Littlewoods
        • The third party setting fire to the cinema was an intervening act as the D was unaware vandals were breaking in and did not have a duty to provide 24-hour surveillance.
      • Smith v Leech Brain (THIN SKULL RULE)
        • The victim suffered a burn on his lip which developed into cancer and he died. The employer was found liable for his death as the thin skull rule applied.
  • The victim suffered a burn on his lip which developed into cancer and he died. The employer was found liable for his death as the thin skull rule applied.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

AR
See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »