Page 88 - Microsoft Word - 00 Prelims.docx

Chapter 3

Illustration 3 – Negligence

ROE v MINISTER OF HEALTH 1954

Facts:

A doctor administered an anaesthetic using all normal precautions at the time of
his actions. The patient was paralysed due to contamination of the anaesthetic
due to contamination in a way not discovered until later.

Held:

The doctor could not be judged against information that was not available at the
time of his actions. He had followed proper practice at that time.

 Body of opinion

– A professional is expected to follow the general practice and body of
opinion in that area.

 Advantage and risk

– When deciding if reasonable care has been taking the courts will weigh up
the benefit and risk of the defendant’s actions

 Emergency

– If an emergency situation caused the defendant to act negligently, this will
be taken into consideration.

 Vulnerability

– If the claimant is vulnerable and the defendant is aware of this
vulnerability, then a higher standard of care is expected.

84