[In answer to a problem question] Consider the rights and remedies, if any, of Marco against Dr Jones and the hospital in connection with his partial paralysis.

Marco has a strong claim in negligence against Dr Jones for his incorrect diagnosis and ineffective treatment which falls below the duty of care expected from a doctor in these circumstances. Medical professionals have an established duty to act through Cassidy -v- Ministry of Health, and Kent -v- Griffiths [2010] has recently developed this - doctors now have no positive duty to attend an injury, but once they do so they must not make the situation worse. This duty is a higher duty for medical professionals as a result of the Bolam test which states that healthcare professionals will be held to a standard of care beyond that of the reasonable person. This breach occurs by an incorrect diagnosis and ineffective treatment, form which harm arises in the form of undiagnosed head injuries. This harm is more than 'merely trifling' as per Rothwell -v- Chemical Insulating Group [2007].

EG

Related Law A Level answers

All answers ▸

When can intoxication be an excuse to avoid criminal liability?


Consider what criticism may be made of the non-fatal offences against the person.


What is the difference between a voidable and void contract?


How would the examiner mark my exam? Do i have to write everything about murder to get full marks?