Introduction: What is negligence? (Duty of care, breach of duty, causation, remoteness and defence) The meaning of each of these 5 parts which consist negligence. Clinical negligence and the difference it has with other type of negligence. (Bolam Case and Caparo v Dickmen) Bolam case V Bolitho Break down the discussion ( within the question there are 4 legal matters to consider)
Body: Throat pain. The doctor according to Bolam always owe a duty of care toward the patient so therefore the duty of care is formally established as mentioned in (Gliker:2011) that in case of specialized duty there is no need to look at the duty of care to prove that there is a duty. Hence, a driver always owes a duty to the fellow drivers and the road, a doctor always has a duty towards a patient. Examining the breach of duty putting into consideration the case of Bolham, the case of Bolihto, the case of sideway. Moreover the issue of Res ipsa loquitur is put forward because the claimant penny is unable in this scenario to prove the nature of the negligence that the doctor made which caused this damage but clearly it was caused during the surgery which is the job of the surgeon who definitely owed a duty of care towards the claimant (Byrne v Boadle) The causation should be tied which says that as a result of the breach of duty the doctor had the damage was done for that to be possible the claimant (penny) should pass the but for test made by the case of Barnett. The causation should prove that because of the breach a harm was made or a materially increased the harm. the chain should not break towards a new intervening effect. Third party intervention and claimant intervention could break the chain of causation or not. Gregg v Scott. Remoteness
Examination regarding back problem. Considering the case of Sideway the doctor should tell the patient an amount of information need and in the same time shall respect her opinion. Doctor found negligence regarding this case. The issue or risk is of a recognized risk associated with the type of surgery, which is by a proof of the examination is seen which makes the doctor action of a not reasonable competent. The negligence is seen clearly in this case.
The issue of third party intervention in the chain of causation and claimant intervention in the chain of causation and examining the issue of remoteness. The issue of breaking her neck even though the examination told her to take medication and limit her movement. It didn’t stress no movement at all but it stressed that the damaged. Examining the facts of the Novus Actus Interveniens didn’t break the chain of causation. Relaying over the facts and the decision of Chester v. Afshar even if the defendant didn’t do any mistake while preforming the surgery not telling Miss Chester about the possible harm is considered negligence and…