Abstract
It is not uncommon for the duty of care owed by a hospital to its patients to be described as 'non-delegable'. Use of this label suggests that a hospital may be held strictly liable to a patient for the wrongdoing of a third party beyond the circumstances in which vicarious liability might be imposed. To date, no higher court has used the label to impose such liability. Notwithstanding, it was assumed by Lord Sumption in Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association that the duty of care owed by a hospital to a patient could be so described when formulating his test for determining the existence of a 'non-delegable duty of care'. This article challenges that assumption and, in turn, the veracity of the test devised by Lord Sumption.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
