File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Commentary: The impatient patient and the unreceptive receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50

TitleCommentary: The impatient patient and the unreceptive receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50
Authors
KeywordsAutonomy
Causation
Duty of care
Medical negligence
Standard of care
Tort
Vulnerability
Issue Date2019
Citation
Medical Law Review, 2019, v. 27, n. 2, p. 318-329 How to Cite?
AbstractIn 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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/344489
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 1.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.545

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPurshouse, Craig-
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-31T03:03:48Z-
dc.date.available2024-07-31T03:03:48Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationMedical Law Review, 2019, v. 27, n. 2, p. 318-329-
dc.identifier.issn0967-0742-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/344489-
dc.description.abstractIn 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.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofMedical Law Review-
dc.subjectAutonomy-
dc.subjectCausation-
dc.subjectDuty of care-
dc.subjectMedical negligence-
dc.subjectStandard of care-
dc.subjectTort-
dc.subjectVulnerability-
dc.titleCommentary: The impatient patient and the unreceptive receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/medlaw/fwy042-
dc.identifier.pmid30597098-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85066944650-
dc.identifier.volume27-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage318-
dc.identifier.epage329-
dc.identifier.eissn1464-3790-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats