Legal standard of care: a shift from the traditional Bolam test

Abstract

An essential component of an action in negligence against a doctor is proof that the doctor failed to provide the required standard of care under the circumstances. Traditionally the standard of care in law has been determined according to the Bolam test. This is based on the principle that a doctor does not breach the legal standard of care, and is therefore not negligent, if the practice is supported by a responsible body of similar professionals. The Bolam principle, however, has been perceived as being excessively reliant upon medical testimony supporting the defendant. The judgment given by the House of Lords in the recent case of Bolitho imposes a requirement that the standard proclaimed must be justified on a logical basis and must have considered the risks and benefits of competing options. The effect of Bolitho is that the court will take a more enquiring stance to test the medical evidence offered by both parties in litigation, in order to reach its own conclusions. Recent case law shows how the court has applied the Bolitho approach in determining the standard of care in cases of clinical negligence. An understanding of this approach and of the shift from the traditional Bolam test is relevant to all medical practitioners, particularly in a climate that is increasingly litigious.