Medical Negligence Essay

In Blythe v Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks Co, Lord Baron Alderson defined negligence as "the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do". Once it is established that a duty of care exists, breach of that duty needs to be proven. Breach is an essential element of negligence in determining the standard of care and therefore, potential liability.

The standard of care was first established in Blythe v Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks Co where liability arises out of negligent conduct and the standard is that of a 'reasonable person'. A reasonable person is therefore an average man, as

The test was adjusted to some extent in Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority. It was held in this case that if professional opinion is not equipped for enduring logical analysis, the court can decide if that body of opinion is reasonable or not. Furthermore in this case, Lord Browne-Wilkinson also suggested that in most cases, the fact that medical experts held a particular view would itself demonstrate reasonableness of that opinion and therefore it would be very rare that the court would hold such a view as unreasonable.

As mentioned above, since the general standard of care in negligence is an objective test, lack of skill of the defendant is not excused. In the case of Nettleship v Weston, the driver was held liable, despite inexperience. The standard of care expected of all motorists is the same, disregarding age or experience. However there have also been cases that question liability when the defendant becomes ill while driving and therefore causes an