Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a ...
Tort law, Professional Negligence: The Bwllfa principle was not relevant to the after date evidence that had been provided to the court and the case was remitted back to the lower courts to determine the value of the loss of opportunity. [54] Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55: 27 November Labour law, Employment Rights Act 1996 ...
Tort Law, medical negligence: Damages payable by Whittington Hospital NHS Trust to a woman who could not bear children following earlier medical negligence could include the costs of surrogacy through commercial agreements abroad. [15] Zipvit Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2020] UKSC 15: 1 April Tax Law, Value Added Tax
Causation (law) - Medical negligence - Tort law Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context. In it, the House of Lords decided that when a doctor fails to inform a patient of the risks of surgery, it is not necessary to show that the failure to inform caused the harm ...
The Supreme Court departed and overruled the earlier House of Lords case in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital, in reconsidering the duty of care of a doctor towards a patient on medical treatment. The case changed the Bolam test to a greater test in medical negligence by introducing the general duty to attempt the ...
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 is an important House of Lords case in English tort law, specifically medical negligence, concerning the duty of a surgeon to inform a patient of the risks before undergoing an operation.
Cases of professional liability blur the distinction between acts and statements, e.g. a medical specialist prepares a report for personal injury litigation, which can be characterised as a statement, but it must be based on the prior acts of carrying out a review of the medical records and performing a physical examination of the client.
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 2 All ER 909 is an English tort law case, about the nature of causation. [1] It rejects the idea that people can sue doctors for the loss of a chance to get better, when doctors fail to do as good a job as they could have done.