Setting the standard of care

Question 1

The general standard

Answer 1

Bolton v Stone: it’s the standard of reasonable care- “that of an ordinarily careful man”
Barrie v Cardiff: no standard of perfection
Wilsher v Essex AHA: there is no average or team standard of care, the fact that C survived his premature birth only because of the extremely high and dedicated care he received throughout his stay did not preclude a finding of breach regarding those first 36 hours

Question 2

Specialism

Answer 2

Will raise the standard
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee: “the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art”
De Freitas v O’Brien: tertiary specialist judged at the standard of a tertiary specialist
Lillywhite v University College London Hospitals NHS Trust: specialist doctor must met the skills of his specialty
Holt v Edge: a GP must meet the standard of a general practice
Shakour v Situ: practitioner of alternate medicine must meet standard of a reasonable practitioner of that medicine (standard being to make sure Orthodox medicine would not regard the prescription as harmful
Cattley v St John’s Ambulance Brigade: voluntary first-aid services must meet standard of ordinary first-aid services, skill of a first-aider trained in accordance with the first-aid manual
Philips v Whitely Ltd: undertaking medically related tasks, but without having any medical qualifications or expertise will be judged at that standard
Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust: medical receptionist held to the reasonable person with experience and training in that role
Carty v Croydon BC: not limited to the medical profession

Question 3

Age

Answer 3

Will lower the standard
Mullin v Richards: D child will not be judged to an adult standard of care

Question 4

Disability

Answer 4

Mansfield v Weetabix: where D is unaware of the disability the standard of care is that of a reasonably competent person unaware that he was or might be suffering from a disability- standard is suppressed
C v Burcombe: where D knows or ought to have known about their disability, the standard is the usual objective one

Question 5

Inexperience

Answer 5

Nettleship v Weston: inexperience does not suppress the standard in a non-professional activity- driver may be doing his best his incompetent best is not enough
Wilsher v Essex: inexperience does not suppress the standard of care in a professional context either

Question 6

Agony of the moment scenarios

Answer 6

Cattley v St John Ambulance Brigade: standard of care is suppressed for Good Samaritan interventions to reflect the emergency, but it won’t be suppressed to the point of negligibility
Kent v Griffiths: ambulances in an emergency scenario are often operating with a conflict of resources and limited time
Ng v Lee: road-user placed in an emergency situation because of the actions of another road-user will have a lower standard in light of the emergency
Begadon v Laois Hunt Club Ltd: standard was lowered to reflect that fox hunts are usually fast-moving scenarios