File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1177/0968533215619468
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84964681701
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Judicial reasoning and the concept of damage: Rethinking medical negligence cases
Title | Judicial reasoning and the concept of damage: Rethinking medical negligence cases |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Autonomy Damage Medical law Negligence Reproduction Tort |
Issue Date | 2015 |
Citation | Medical Law International, 2015, v. 15, n. 2-3, p. 155-181 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Damage is the GIST of the action in negligence but is often subsumed within other headings of this tort such as duty of care, quantum of damages and causation. This article examines three important decisions where new forms of damage, such as the costs of raising a healthy child or loss of autonomy, have been implicitly recognized or rejected - McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board, Rees v. Darlington and Chester v. Afshar - and suggests that the lack of separate scrutiny of the damage concept in such cases is leading to poor reasoning and questionable results that threaten to undermine the coherence of the tort of negligence. Methods of restoring clarity to this tort are then addressed. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344469 |
ISSN | 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.354 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Purshouse, Craig | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-31T03:03:41Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-07-31T03:03:41Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Medical Law International, 2015, v. 15, n. 2-3, p. 155-181 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0968-5332 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344469 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Damage is the GIST of the action in negligence but is often subsumed within other headings of this tort such as duty of care, quantum of damages and causation. This article examines three important decisions where new forms of damage, such as the costs of raising a healthy child or loss of autonomy, have been implicitly recognized or rejected - McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board, Rees v. Darlington and Chester v. Afshar - and suggests that the lack of separate scrutiny of the damage concept in such cases is leading to poor reasoning and questionable results that threaten to undermine the coherence of the tort of negligence. Methods of restoring clarity to this tort are then addressed. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Medical Law International | - |
dc.subject | Autonomy | - |
dc.subject | Damage | - |
dc.subject | Medical law | - |
dc.subject | Negligence | - |
dc.subject | Reproduction | - |
dc.subject | Tort | - |
dc.title | Judicial reasoning and the concept of damage: Rethinking medical negligence cases | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/0968533215619468 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84964681701 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 15 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2-3 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 155 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 181 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2047-9441 | - |