Abstract
In Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court held that a hospital receptionist's misleading statement about A&E waiting times constituted a breach of duty and that the claimant's decision, based on this misinformation, to leave the hospital did not break the chain of causation when he was left paralysed as a result of a head injury. In this commentary, I argue that while the Supreme Court's treatment of duty of care and breach is, for the most part, a model of doctrinal clarity, its treatment of the causation issue is problematic as it elides the test of whether there has been a break in the chain of causation with that for remoteness. I then comment on the Supreme Court's construction of the patient in medical negligence cases.
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.
