[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
Answered by Ed G. Law tutor

2777 Views

See similar Law A Level tutors

Related Law A Level answers

All answers ▸

What are the policy reasons for imposing strict liability in vicarious liability cases?


What is 'intention' in the criminal law?


Ben has a history of violence, and has been in and out of prison. Ben and Lisa get into an argument, during which he shouts "You better shut up, or else!". Lisa knows of his history and gets very scared. Discuss the possible criminal liability of Ben.


What are some of the main arguments for and against maintaining the doctrine of privity within the law of contract?


We're here to help

contact us iconContact usWhatsapp logoMessage us on Whatsapptelephone icon+44 (0) 203 773 6020
Facebook logoInstagram logoLinkedIn logo

© MyTutorWeb Ltd 2013–2025

Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy
Cookie Preferences