File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1093/medlaw/fwy042
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85066944650
- PMID: 30597098
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Commentary: The impatient patient and the unreceptive receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50
Title | Commentary: The impatient patient and the unreceptive receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50 |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Autonomy Causation Duty of care Medical negligence Standard of care Tort Vulnerability |
Issue Date | 2019 |
Citation | Medical Law Review, 2019, v. 27, n. 2, p. 318-329 How to Cite? |
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. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344489 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.545 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Purshouse, Craig | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-31T03:03:48Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-07-31T03:03:48Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Medical Law Review, 2019, v. 27, n. 2, p. 318-329 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0967-0742 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344489 | - |
dc.description.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. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Medical Law Review | - |
dc.subject | Autonomy | - |
dc.subject | Causation | - |
dc.subject | Duty of care | - |
dc.subject | Medical negligence | - |
dc.subject | Standard of care | - |
dc.subject | Tort | - |
dc.subject | Vulnerability | - |
dc.title | Commentary: The impatient patient and the unreceptive receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50 | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/medlaw/fwy042 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 30597098 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85066944650 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 27 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 318 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 329 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1464-3790 | - |