메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 609-638

Trumping bolam: A critical legal analysis of Bolitho's “Gloss”

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords


EID: 85012501934     PISSN: 00081973     EISSN: 14692139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0008197310000826     Document Type: Article
Times cited : (37)

References (263)
  • 1
    • 85012488898 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Williams & Co. Ltd.v. Michael Hyde & Ass. Ltd. [2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 823, 830
    • (2000) Lloyd's Rep. P.N , vol.823 , pp. 830
  • 2
    • 85012558335 scopus 로고
    • referring to: 587
    • referring to: Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 583, 587.
    • (1957) 1 W.L.R , pp. 583
  • 3
    • 85012558606 scopus 로고
    • The Bolam test now applies to any profession which requires special skill, knowledge or experience: 489
    • The Bolam test now applies to any profession which requires special skill, knowledge or experience: Gold v. Haringey H.A. [1988] Q.B. 481, 489
    • (1988) Q.B , pp. 481
  • 4
    • 85012548618 scopus 로고
    • Edward Wong Finance Co. Ltd.v. Johnson Stokes & Master (a firm) [1984] A.C. 296.
    • (1984) A.C , pp. 296
  • 5
    • 85012520334 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (Sir Christopher Staughton and Morritt L.J., Sedley L.J. dissenting) (re window design and fire escape)
    • Adams v. Rhymney Valley DC [2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 777, at [42] (Sir Christopher Staughton and Morritt L.J., Sedley L.J. dissenting) (re window design and fire escape).
    • (2000) Lloyd's Rep. P.N , vol.777 , pp. 42
  • 6
    • 85012462461 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at Cf.: (Bolam does not determine question of breach of hospital towards staff)
    • Cf.: Buck v. Nottinghamshire Healthcare N.H.S. Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 1576, at [36] (Bolam does not determine question of breach of hospital towards staff).
    • (2006) EWCA Civ 1576 , pp. 36
  • 7
    • 85012493289 scopus 로고
    • The terminology used, e.g., in
    • The terminology used, e.g., in: Joyce v. Merton Sutton and Wandsworth H.A. (1995) 27 B.M.L.R. 124, 137
    • (1995) 27 B.M.L.R , vol.124 , pp. 137
  • 8
    • 85012459604 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 30 July
    • Rampling v. Haringey H.A. (Q.B., 30 July 1996)
    • (1996) Q.B
  • 9
    • 85012480714 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Birch v University College London Hospital N.H.S. Foundation Trust [2008] EWHC 2237 (Q.B.), at [54].
    • (2008) EWHC 2237 (Q.B.) , pp. 54
  • 10
    • 85012503528 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Lord Browne-Wilkinson delivered the judgment of the House, on behalf of Lords Slynn, Nolan, Hoffmann and Clyde, on 13 November 1997)
    • [1998] A.C. 232 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson delivered the judgment of the House, on behalf of Lords Slynn, Nolan, Hoffmann and Clyde, on 13 November 1997).
    • (1998) A.C , pp. 232
  • 11
    • 85012453832 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at These phrases are to be variously found in the judgment 241 and 243
    • These phrases are to be variously found in the judgment, A.C., at 238, 241 and 243.
    • A.C , pp. 238
  • 12
    • 85012571687 scopus 로고
    • The phrase, “respectable body of professional opinion”, was also cited by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, at 241, with reference to Lord Scarman's terminology in the earlier decision 639
    • The phrase, “respectable body of professional opinion”, was also cited by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, at 241, with reference to Lord Scarman's terminology in the earlier decision, Maynard v. West Midlands Regional H.A. [1984] 1 W.L.R. 634, 639.
    • (1984) 1 W.L.R , pp. 634
  • 13
    • 85012496074 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • EWHC 2253
    • at
    • Kingsberry v. Greater Manchester Strategic H.A. [2005] EWHC 2253, 87 B.M.L.R. 73, at [11].
    • (2005) 87 B.M.L.R , vol.73 , pp. 11
  • 15
    • 85012440993 scopus 로고
    • in the realm of diagnosis and treatment
    • Lord Scarman paraphrased the Bolam test as applying In 638 (emphasis added)
    • In Maynard v. West Midlands Regional H.A., Lord Scarman paraphrased the Bolam test as applying “in the realm of diagnosis and treatment” [1984] 1 W.L.R. 634, 638 (emphasis added)
    • (1984) 1 W.L.R , pp. 634
  • 16
    • 85012446488 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • and in Bolitho, Lord Browne-Wilkinson referred to Bolam's test as a question of whether “the defendants' treatment or diagnosis accorded with sound medical practice”: 241 (emphasis added), and at 242
    • and in Bolitho, Lord Browne-Wilkinson referred to Bolam's test as a question of whether “the defendants' treatment or diagnosis accorded with sound medical practice”: [1998] A.C. 232, 241 (emphasis added), and at 242.
    • (1998) A.C , pp. 232
  • 17
    • 85012557197 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • EWHC 2237
    • For recent discussion of Bolam in failure-to-disclose-inherent-risks litigation, see
    • For recent discussion of Bolam in failure-to-disclose-inherent-risks litigation, see: Birch v. University College Hosp. N.H.S. Trust [2008] EWHC 2237, 104 B.M.L.R. 16
    • (2008) 104 B.M.L.R , pp. 16
  • 18
    • 85012451163 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • and earlier
    • and earlier: Pearce v. United Bristol Healthcare N.H.S. Trust (1998) 48 B.M.L.R. 118
    • (1998) 48 B.M.L.R , pp. 118
  • 19
    • 85012505426 scopus 로고
    • Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] A.C. 871.
    • (1985) A.C , pp. 871
  • 20
    • 85010117177 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Medical Disclosure of Alternative Treatments
    • For commentary on Birch, see, e.g.
    • For commentary on Birch, see, e.g.: R. Heywood, “Medical Disclosure of Alternative Treatments” [2009] C.L.J. 30.
    • (2009) C.L.J , pp. 30
    • Heywood, R.1
  • 21
    • 85012530017 scopus 로고
    • Caparo Industriesplc v. Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605, 618.
    • (1990) 2 A.C , vol.605 , pp. 618
  • 22
    • 85012506687 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See too, Lord Bingham's statement about labels in
    • See too, Lord Bingham's statement about labels in Commrs of Customs and Excise v. Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28
    • (2006) UKHL , pp. 28
  • 23
    • 85012456455 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • [2007] 1 A.C. 181, at [6].
    • (2007) 1 A.C , vol.181 , pp. 6
  • 24
    • 84881632828 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • English v. EmeryReimbold & StrickLtd.; D.J. & C. Withers v. Ambic Equipment Ltd.; Verrechia v. Commr ofPolice ofthe Metropolis (Practice Note) [2002] EWCA Civ 605
    • (2002) EWCA Civ , pp. 605
  • 25
    • 85012528881 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2409
    • (2002) 1 W.L.R , pp. 2409
  • 26
    • 85012458897 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • and see, too: (“the judge must enter into the issues canvassed before him and explain why he prefers one case over the other. This is likely to apply particularly in litigation where… there is disputed expert evidence”)
    • and see, too: Flannery v. Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd. [2000] 1 W.L.R. 377 (“the judge must enter into the issues canvassed before him and explain why he prefers one case over the other. This is likely to apply particularly in litigation where… there is disputed expert evidence”)
    • (2000) 1 W.L.R , pp. 377
  • 27
    • 85012454907 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • cited in at
    • cited in Withers, at [6]
    • Withers , pp. 6
  • 28
    • 85012536035 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • St George v. Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 1068
    • (2008) EWCA Civ , pp. 1068
  • 29
    • 85012448129 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1670.
    • (2009) 1 W.L.R , pp. 1670
  • 30
    • 85012500860 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • EWCA Civ 1097
    • at In the medical context, see: for a discussion of the importance of due judicial process, and the safeguards which careful judicial rebuttal of experts' views provide
    • In the medical context, see: Glicksman v. Redbridge Healthcare N.H.S. Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1097, 63 B.M.L.R. 109, at [10]-[11], for a discussion of the importance of due judicial process, and the safeguards which careful judicial rebuttal of experts' views provide.
    • (2001) 63 B.M.L.R , vol.109 , pp. 10-11
  • 31
    • 85012536358 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Butterfingers and the Bolam Test: Can Bolam Apply to Simple Clumsiness by the Doctor?
    • See too
    • See too: B. Moxon Browne QC, “Butterfingers and the Bolam Test: Can Bolam Apply to Simple Clumsiness by the Doctor?” [2008] Injury Times (2 Temple Gardens).
    • (2008) Injury Times (2 Temple Gardens)
    • Moxon, B.1    Browne, Q.C.2
  • 32
    • 85012489312 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Albeit that there is no property in a witness, and under the Civil Procedure Rules, r. 35.3(1) and (2), the role of the expert is now “to help the court on the matters within his expertise”, so that this “duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid”. See, further, on this point: (T.C.C.), at
    • Albeit that there is no property in a witness, and under the Civil Procedure Rules, r. 35.3(1) and (2), the role of the expert is now “to help the court on the matters within his expertise”, so that this “duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid”. See, further, on this point: Royal Brompton Hosp N.H.S. Trust v. Hammond (No 2) [2002] All E.R. (D) 189 (T.C.C.), at [22]
    • (2002) All E.R. (D) , vol.189 , pp. 22
  • 34
    • 85012472161 scopus 로고
    • 587 (“Bolam”). The test was derived from McNair J.'s direction to the jury
    • Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 583, 587 (“Bolam”). The test was derived from McNair J.'s direction to the jury.
    • (1957) 1 W.L.R , pp. 583
  • 35
    • 85012491677 scopus 로고
    • This point was alluded to, e.g., by Warner J. in Taylor v Warners (Ch.D., 21 July 1987), citing that part of McNair J.'s judgment in Bolam which states: “it is not essential for you to decide which of two practices is the better practice, as long as you accept that what the defendants did was in accordance with a practice accepted by responsible persons; ifthe result ofthe evidence is that you are satisfied that his practice is better than the practice spoken of on the other side, then it is really a stronger case”
    • This point was alluded to, e.g., by Warner J. in Taylor v Warners (Ch.D., 21 July 1987), citing that part of McNair J.'s judgment in Bolam which states: “it is not essential for you to decide which of two practices is the better practice, as long as you accept that what the defendants did was in accordance with a practice accepted by responsible persons; ifthe result ofthe evidence is that you are satisfied that his practice is better than the practice spoken of on the other side, then it is really a stronger case”: [1957] 1 W.L.R. 583, 587–588.
    • (1957) 1 W.L.R , vol.583 , pp. 587-588
  • 36
    • 0004173783 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See too: 3rd ed., (London
    • See too: I. Kennedy and A. Grubb, Medical Law, 3rd ed., (London 2000), p. 427.
    • (2000) Medical Law , pp. 427
    • Kennedy, I.1    Grubb, A.2
  • 37
    • 85012525886 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Foo Fio Na v. Dr. Soo Fook Mun [2007] 1 M.L.J. 593
    • (2007) 1 M.L.J , pp. 593
  • 38
    • 85012551037 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Fed. Ct. of App., 29 December 2006 at
    • [2006] M.L.J.U. 518 (Fed. Ct. of App., 29 December 2006), at [26].
    • (2006) M.L.J.U. 518 , pp. 26
  • 39
    • 85012479403 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • This view was also posed by 9th ed., (Sydney
    • This view was also posed by J. Fleming, The Law ofTorts,9th ed., (Sydney 1997), p. 121.
    • (1997) The Law ofTorts , pp. 121
    • Fleming, J.1
  • 40
    • 85012512566 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Khoo v. Gunapathy d/o Muniandy [2002] 2 S.L.R. 414, at [63].
    • (2002) 2 S.L.R , vol.414 , pp. 63
  • 41
    • 85012446191 scopus 로고
    • Hajgato v. London Health Assn (1982), 36 O.R. (2d) 669, 693.
    • (1982) 36 O.R. (2d) , vol.669 , pp. 693
  • 42
    • 85012463969 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Burne v. A [2006] EWCA Civ 24, at [10].
    • (2006) EWCA Civ , vol.24 , pp. 10
  • 43
    • 85012495061 scopus 로고
    • per King C.J. (this was also a disclosure, not a treatment, case)
    • F v. R [1983] 33 S.A.S.R. 189 (Full Ct.) 191, per King C.J. (this was also a disclosure, not a treatment, case).
    • (1983) 33 S.A.S.R. 189 (Full Ct.) , pp. 191
  • 44
    • 85012543293 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at Also: [36] (“Professional practice is not conclusive evidence ofthe prudence ofa course ofaction where that practice, which a profession has adopted as a matter of its own convenience, involves risks that are foreseeable and readily avoided”)
    • Also: Scott v. Lothian University Hospitals N.H.S. Trust [2006] Scot. C.S. (O.H.), at [33], [36] (“Professional practice is not conclusive evidence ofthe prudence ofa course ofaction where that practice, which a profession has adopted as a matter of its own convenience, involves risks that are foreseeable and readily avoided”).
    • (2006) Scot. C.S. (O.H.) , pp. 33
  • 45
    • 85012530029 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See, e.g. 184 (using a hypothetical example only of prescribing arsenic)
    • See, e.g.: Shakoor v. Situ (2000) 57 B.M.L.R. 178, 184 (using a hypothetical example only of prescribing arsenic).
    • (2000) 57 B.M.L.R , pp. 178
  • 46
    • 27544436163 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at See too: and [3.24], citing cervical smear results and subsequent cancer treatment in New Zealand: Committee of Enquiry into Allegations Concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women's Hospital and into Other Related Matters (1988)
    • See too: Ipp Committee, Review of the Law of Negligence: Final Report (2002), at [3.10] and [3.24], citing cervical smear results and subsequent cancer treatment in New Zealand: Committee of Enquiry into Allegations Concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women's Hospital and into Other Related Matters (1988).
    • (2002) Review of the Law of Negligence: Final Report , pp. 3.10
  • 47
    • 0344581989 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?
    • at
    • Lord Woolf, “Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?” (2001) 9 Med L. Rev. 1, at 3.
    • (2001) 9 Med L. Rev , vol.1 , pp. 3
    • Woolf, L.1
  • 48
    • 85012440903 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [no pp]
    • Wisniewski v. Central Manchester H.A. [1998] EWCA Civ 596. [no pp]
    • (1998) EWCA Civ , pp. 596
  • 49
    • 85012513777 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Kamalam a/p Raman v. Eastern Plantation Agency (Johore) [1996] 4 M.L.J. 674.
    • (1996) 4 M.L.J , pp. 674
  • 50
    • 0004173783 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 3rd ed., (London See too: (Bolam gave “exceptional prominence to expert evidence”)
    • See too: I. Kennedy and A. Grubb, Medical Law,3rd ed., (London 2000), p. 425 (Bolam gave “exceptional prominence to expert evidence”)
    • (2000) Medical Law , pp. 425
    • Kennedy, I.1    Grubb, A.2
  • 51
    • 33748659541 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 2nd ed., (London (Some post-Bolam cases showed “excessive deference”)
    • E. Jackson, Medical Law: Text, Cases and Materials 2nd ed., (London 2010), p. 120 (Some post-Bolam cases showed “excessive deference”).
    • (2010) Medical Law: Text, Cases and Materials , pp. 120
    • Jackson, E.1
  • 52
    • 85012560195 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • For a previous similar reasoning
    • [1998] A.C. 232. For a previous similar reasoning
    • (1998) A.C , pp. 232
  • 53
    • 85012531817 scopus 로고
    • see: 728
    • see: Hills v. Potter [1985] 1 All E.R. 643, 728.
    • (1985) 1 All E.R , pp. 643
  • 54
    • 85012452239 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 1 All E.R., at 243.
    • 1 All E.R , pp. 243
  • 55
    • 0142254826 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • The Standard of Care in Medical Negligence: Moving on from Bolam
    • For academic commentary at the time, either emphasising or debunking the effect that Bolitho would have on the law of professional breach, see, e.g.
    • For academic commentary at the time, either emphasising or debunking the effect that Bolitho would have on the law of professional breach, see, e.g.: H. Teff, “The Standard of Care in Medical Negligence: Moving on from Bolam” (1998) 18 O.J.L.S. 473
    • (1998) 18 O.J.L.S , pp. 473
    • Teff, H.1
  • 56
    • 0347687300 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Negligence: Causation and Bolam
    • A. Grubb, “Negligence: Causation and Bolam” (1998) 6 Med. L. Rev. 378
    • (1998) 6 Med. L. Rev , pp. 378
    • Grubb, A.1
  • 57
    • 0003003283 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Bye-Bye Bolam: A Medical Litigation Revolution?
    • M. Brazier and J. Miola, “Bye-Bye Bolam: A Medical Litigation Revolution?” (2000) 8 Med. L. Rev. 85
    • (2000) 8 Med. L. Rev , pp. 85
    • Brazier, M.1    Miola, J.2
  • 58
    • 33644882106 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Reining in the Bolam Test
    • J. Keown, “Reining in the Bolam Test” (1998) 57 C.L.J. 248
    • (1998) 57 C.L.J , pp. 248
    • Keown, J.1
  • 60
    • 4143125124 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • The Bolam Test and the Reasonable Expert
    • M. Jones, “The Bolam Test and the Reasonable Expert” (1999) 7 Tort L. Rev. 226
    • (1999) 7 Tort L. Rev , pp. 226
    • Jones, M.1
  • 62
    • 85012471295 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • [2005] EWHC 459 (Q.B.), at [9]-[10].
    • (2005) EWHC , vol.459 , pp. 9-10
  • 63
    • 85012464474 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Kingsberry v. Greater Manchester Strategic H.A. [2005] EWHC 2253, 87 B.M.L.R. 73, at [11].
    • (2005) EWHC 2253, 87 B.M.L.R , vol.73 , pp. 11
  • 64
    • 85012536824 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • M v. Blackpool Victoria Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2003] EWHC 1744, at [24]
    • (2003) EWHC 1744 , pp. 24
  • 65
    • 85012460477 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Marriott v. West Midlands Regional H.A. [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. Med. 23, 35
    • (1999) 1 Lloyd's Rep. Med , vol.23 , pp. 35
  • 66
    • 85012478745 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Ball v. WirralH.A. (2003) 73 B.M.L.R. 31,43.
    • (2003) 73 B.M.L.R , vol.31 , pp. 43
  • 67
    • 85012428055 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • J.D. Williams & Co. Ltd.v. Michael Hyde & Ass. Ltd. [2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 823.
    • (2000) Lloyd's Rep. P.N , pp. 823
  • 68
    • 85012463892 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • e.g.: at
    • e.g.: Bellarby v. Worthing and Southlands Hospitals N.H.S. Trust [2005] EWHC 2089, 86 B.M.L.R. 1, at [112]
    • (2005) EWHC 2089, 86 B.M.L.R , vol.1 , pp. 112
  • 69
    • 85012485599 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 1 May at
    • Tuke v. Mid Essex Hospital Services N.H.S. Trust (Q.B., 1 May 2003), at [32]
    • (2003) Q.B , pp. 32
  • 70
    • 85012494994 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Manning v. King's College Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2008] EWHC 1838 (Q.B.), at [140]
    • (2008) EWHC 1838 (Q.B.) , pp. 140
  • 71
    • 85012463241 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • EWHC 48 (Q.B.)
    • at
    • Cowley v. Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic H.A. [2007] EWHC 48 (Q.B.), 94 B.M.L.R. 29, at [53]-[55]
    • (2007) 94 B.M.L.R , vol.29 , pp. 53-55
  • 72
    • 85012560084 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 5 November
    • O Loughlin v. Greig (Q.B., 5 November 1999)
    • Q.B , pp. 1999
  • 73
    • 85012503064 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 30 July no pp
    • Rampling v. Haringey H.A. (Q.B., 30 July 1996), [no pp]
    • (1996) Q.B
  • 74
    • 85012550564 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Nash v. Kingston and Richmond H.A. (1996) 36 B.M.L.R. 123
    • (1996) 36 B.M.L.R , pp. 123
  • 75
    • 85012486390 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Newbury v. Bath District H.A. (1998) 47 B.M.L.R. 138, 143
    • (1998) 47 B.M.L.R , vol.138 , pp. 143
  • 76
    • 85012567489 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Brooks v. Home Office (1999) 48 B.M.L.R. 109, 116
    • (1999) 48 B.M.L.R , vol.109 , pp. 116
  • 77
    • 85012444402 scopus 로고
    • Joyce v. Merton Sutton and Wandsworth H.A. (1995) 27 B.M.L.R. 124
    • (1995) 27 B.M.L.R , pp. 124
  • 78
    • 85012520477 scopus 로고
    • citing trial judge Overend J.'s earlier statement with approval; no pp
    • citing trial judge Overend J.'s earlier statement with approval; Adderley v. North Manchester H.A. (1995) 25 B.M.L.R. 42, [no pp]
    • (1995) 25 B.M.L.R , pp. 42
  • 79
    • 85012436171 scopus 로고
    • 15 February
    • Neilson v. Basildon ofThurrock H.A. (Q.B., 15 February 1991)
    • (1991) Q.B
  • 80
    • 33744943181 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (“the judge… correctly directed herself that it was not open to her simply to prefer the expert evidence of one body of competent professional opinion over that of another where there was a conflict between the experts called by the parties”)
    • Marriott v. West Midlands Regional H.A. [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. Med. 23 (“the judge… correctly directed herself that it was not open to her simply to prefer the expert evidence of one body of competent professional opinion over that of another where there was a conflict between the experts called by the parties”).
    • (1999) 1 Lloyd's Rep. Med , pp. 23
  • 81
    • 85012451476 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • B v. North West Strategic H.A. (City Maternity Hospital Carlisle) [2008] EWHC 2375, at [9].
    • (2008) EWHC 2375 , pp. 9
  • 82
    • 85012452757 scopus 로고
    • 638, 648, per Lord Scarman (“[a] court may prefer one body of opinion to another, but that is no basis for a conclusion of negligence”)
    • Maynard v. West Midlands Regional H.A. [1984] 1 W.L.R. 634, 638, 648, per Lord Scarman (“[a] court may prefer one body of opinion to another, but that is no basis for a conclusion of negligence”)
    • (1984) 1 W.L.R , pp. 634
  • 83
    • 85012469808 scopus 로고
    • 895, per Lord Diplock (“[the court] has to relyupon and evaluate expert evidence, remembering that it is no part of its task of evaluation to give effect to any preference it may have for one responsible body of professional opinion over another, provided it is satisfied by the expert evidence that both qualify as responsible bodies ofmedical opinion”)
    • Sidaway v. Governors ofBethlem Royal Hospital [1985] A.C. 871, 895, per Lord Diplock (“[the court] has to relyupon and evaluate expert evidence, remembering that it is no part of its task of evaluation to give effect to any preference it may have for one responsible body of professional opinion over another, provided it is satisfied by the expert evidence that both qualify as responsible bodies ofmedical opinion”)
    • (1985) A.C , pp. 871
  • 84
    • 85012478173 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 243, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson (“it would be wrong to allow such assessment to deteriorate into seeking to persuade the judge to prefer one of two views both of which are capable of being logically supported”)
    • Bolitho v. CityandHackneyH.A. [1998] A.C. 232, 243, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson (“it would be wrong to allow such assessment to deteriorate into seeking to persuade the judge to prefer one of two views both of which are capable of being logically supported”).
    • (1998) A.C , pp. 232
  • 85
    • 85012545231 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (emphasis added)
    • Adams v. Rhymney Valley DC [2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 777, at [41] (emphasis added).
    • (2000) Lloyd's Rep. P.N , vol.777 , pp. 41
  • 86
    • 85012456044 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Bolam, at 587.
    • Bolam1
  • 87
    • 85012440613 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Bolitho [1998] A.C. 232, 243.
    • (1998) A.C , vol.232 , pp. 243
    • Bolitho1
  • 88
    • 85012494824 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (a unanimous judgment delivered 18 June 2010)
    • Ministry ofJustice v. Carter [2010] EWCA Civ 694 (a unanimous judgment delivered 18 June 2010).
    • (2010) EWCA Civ , pp. 694
  • 89
    • 85007975670 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at and [29], per Sir Scott Baker
    • EWCA Civ., at [28] and [29], per Sir Scott Baker.
    • EWCA Civ , pp. 28
  • 90
    • 85007975670 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • EWCA Civ., at [22].
    • EWCA Civ , pp. 22
  • 91
    • 85012428055 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See, generally
    • See, generally: Williams & Co. Ltd. v Michael Hyde & Ass. Ltd. [2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 823.
    • (2000) Lloyd's Rep. P.N , pp. 823
  • 92
    • 85012435040 scopus 로고
    • 587 (emphasis added)
    • [1957] 1 W.L.R. 583, 587 (emphasis added).
    • (1957) 1 W.L.R , pp. 583
  • 93
    • 85012539354 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (emphasis added)
    • (2000) 55 B.M.L.R. 63, at [26] (emphasis added).
    • (2000) 55 B.M.L.R , vol.63 , pp. 26
  • 94
    • 85012477155 scopus 로고
    • Gold v. Haringey H.A. [1988] Q.B. 481.
    • (1988) Q.B , pp. 481
  • 95
    • 85012452413 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Savage v. South Essex Partnership N.H.S. Foundation Trust [2008] UKHL 74, at [50].
    • (2008) UKHL , vol.74 , pp. 50
  • 96
    • 85012513769 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Bailey v. MOD [2008] EWCA Civ 883.
    • (2008) EWCA Civ , pp. 883
  • 97
    • 85012443416 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • L v. West Midlands Strategic H.A. [2009] EWHC 259.
    • (2009) EWHC , pp. 259
  • 98
    • 85012538243 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (“That clinical judgment takes the case back to an analysis as described in Bolam and Bolitho”, per Leveson L.J.)
    • [2010] EWCA Civ 694, at [23] (“That clinical judgment takes the case back to an analysis as described in Bolam and Bolitho”, per Leveson L.J.).
    • (2010) EWCA Civ , vol.694 , pp. 23
  • 99
    • 85007975670 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • EWCA Civ., at 490.
    • EWCA Civ , pp. 490
  • 100
    • 85012428055 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • J.D. Williams & Co. Ltd.v. Michael Hyde & Ass. Ltd. [2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 823.
    • (2000) Lloyd's Rep. P.N , pp. 823
  • 101
    • 85012457441 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Also: (T.C.C.), at
    • Also: Royal Brompton Hosp N.H.S. Trust v. Hammond (No 2) [2002] All E.R. (D) 189 (T.C.C.), at [17].
    • (2002) All E.R. (D) , vol.189 , pp. 17
  • 102
    • 85012491231 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at 19th ed., (London (Bolam “only to professional decisions whether or not to use a certain form of treatment [and diagnosis], and not to simple cases of carelessness”)
    • A. Dugdale et al. (eds.), Clerk and Lindsell on Torts,19th ed., (London 2009), at [10.63] (Bolam “only to professional decisions whether or not to use a certain form of treatment [and diagnosis], and not to simple cases of carelessness”)
    • (2009) Clerk and Lindsell on Torts , pp. 10.63
    • Dugdale, A.1
  • 103
    • 0004146433 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • and see, too: 4th ed., (London
    • and see, too: M. Jones, Medical Negligence,4th ed., (London 2008), p. 255.
    • (2008) Medical Negligence , pp. 255
    • Jones, M.1
  • 104
    • 85012453863 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Smith v. Southampton University Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 387
    • (2007) EWCA Civ , pp. 387
  • 105
    • 85012536358 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Butterfingers and the Bolam Test: Can Bolam Apply to Simple Clumsiness by the Doctor?
    • and discussed further in
    • and discussed further in: B. Moxon Browne QC, “Butterfingers and the Bolam Test: Can Bolam Apply to Simple Clumsiness by the Doctor?” [2008] Injury Times (2 Temple Gardens).
    • (2008) Injury Times (2 Temple Gardens)
    • Moxon, B.1    Browne, Q.C.2
  • 106
    • 85012438844 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • dated 16 October (on the grounds that the case did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance)
    • Report from the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords (dated 16 October 2007) (on the grounds that the case did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance).
    • (2007) Report from the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords
  • 107
    • 85012439168 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (“[o]bviously this issue does not relate to medical or surgical diagnosis or treatment. What it relates to is staffing levels. But it has been argued before me on the footing that the Bolam/Bolitho principles apply to that question as well. I, therefore, deal with the case on that basis”)
    • Garcia v. St Mary's N.H.S. Trust [2006] EWHC 2314 (Q.B.), at [88] (“[o]bviously this issue does not relate to medical or surgical diagnosis or treatment. What it relates to is staffing levels. But it has been argued before me on the footing that the Bolam/Bolitho principles apply to that question as well. I, therefore, deal with the case on that basis”).
    • (2006) EWHC 2314 (Q.B.) , pp. 88
  • 108
    • 85012455150 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (the point, “while an important aspect ofclinical practice, sits at the threshold rather than at the centre of it”)
    • Burne v. A [2006] EWCA Civ 24, at [13] (the point, “while an important aspect ofclinical practice, sits at the threshold rather than at the centre of it”).
    • (2006) EWCA Civ , vol.24 , pp. 13
  • 109
    • 85012549906 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Rehman v. University College London [2004] EWHC 1361 (Q.B.).
    • (2004) EWHC 1361 (Q.B.)
  • 110
    • 85012509551 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (re the medical decision to discharge a patient who was unable to tolerate an exercise test and who complained of chest pain, without conducting further coronary investigation and treatment; patient suffered cardiac arrest shortly after, and died; negligence held, on the basis that either this was not a Bolam matter, or “even if Bolam is applicable to this issue”, the expert evidence which supported the defendant cardiologist's decision to discharge “would not be logically sustainable”: at 245
    • Mellor v. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 780 (re the medical decision to discharge a patient who was unable to tolerate an exercise test and who complained of chest pain, without conducting further coronary investigation and treatment; patient suffered cardiac arrest shortly after, and died; negligence held, on the basis that either this was not a Bolam matter, or “even if Bolam is applicable to this issue”, the expert evidence which supported the defendant cardiologist's decision to discharge “would not be logically sustainable”: at [245].
    • (2004) EWHC , pp. 780
  • 111
    • 85012539469 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • EWHC Civ 476
    • The same either/ or analysis was evident in, e.g: at
    • The same either/ or analysis was evident in, e.g: Sutcliffe v. BMI Healthcare Ltd. [2007] EWHC Civ 476, 98 B.M.L.R. 211, at [33]
    • (2007) 98 B.M.L.R , vol.211 , pp. 33
  • 112
    • 85012559895 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Applications of Bolitho to Standard of Care and Causation
    • on which, for criticism, see
    • on which, for criticism, see: P. Case, “Applications of Bolitho to Standard of Care and Causation” (2007) 23 Professional Negligence 193.
    • (2007) 23 Professional Negligence , pp. 193
    • Case, P.1
  • 113
    • 85012485902 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 7 May (accessed via Lexisnexis, no pagination available)
    • Fallows v. Randle (C.A., 7 May 1996) (accessed via Lexisnexis, no pagination available).
    • (1996) C.A
  • 114
    • 85012501892 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penney v. East Kent H.A. (2000) 55 B.M.L.R. 63
    • (2000) 55 B.M.L.R , pp. 63
  • 115
    • 85012511906 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • and applied, in a similar type ofcase ofwhat was visible to the cytoscreeners, in: (Q.B.)
    • and applied, in a similar type ofcase ofwhat was visible to the cytoscreeners, in: Conway v. Cardiffand Vale N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 1841 (Q.B.).
    • (2004) EWHC , pp. 1841
  • 116
    • 85012488926 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.)
    • Colwill v. Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals N.H.S. Trust [2007] EWHC 2881 (Q.B.).
    • (2007) EWHC , pp. 2881
  • 118
    • 33744943181 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See, e.g.: per Bedlam L.J.
    • See, e.g.: Marriott v. West Midlands Regional H.A. [1999] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 23, per Bedlam L.J.
    • (1999) Lloyd's Rep. Med , pp. 23
  • 119
    • 85012526873 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • and see, more recently: (Admin), at
    • and see, more recently: A v. Croydon Social Services [2009] EWHC 939 (Admin), at [79]-[80].
    • (2009) EWHC , vol.939 , pp. 79-80
  • 120
    • 85012485413 scopus 로고
    • For a non-medical application, see, e.g. 103
    • For a non-medical application, see, e.g.: Nye Saunders & Partners (a firm) v. Alan E. Bristow (1987) 37 B.L.R. 97, 103.
    • (1987) 37 B.L.R , pp. 97
  • 121
    • 79951915001 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • The Logic of Bolitho
    • Other interesting post-Bolitho reviews have concentrated on different aspects, e.g.
    • Other interesting post-Bolitho reviews have concentrated on different aspects, e.g.: R. Heywood, “The Logic of Bolitho” (2006) 22 Professional Negligence 225
    • (2006) 22 Professional Negligence , pp. 225
    • Heywood, R.1
  • 122
    • 13844283227 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Beyond Bolam and Bolitho
    • A. Maclean, “Beyond Bolam and Bolitho” (2002) 5 Med. Law Intl. 205.
    • (2002) 5 Med. Law Intl , pp. 205
    • Maclean, A.1
  • 124
    • 85012434212 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Fam. Ct.), at Noted, e.g., in: per Otter L.J.
    • Noted, e.g., in: In Re B (A Child) [2000] 1 W.L.R. 790 (Fam. Ct.), at 796, per Otter L.J.
    • (2000) 1 W.L.R , vol.790 , pp. 796
  • 125
    • 85012474583 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • EWHC 2066
    • at
    • E v. Castro [2003] EWHC 2066, 80 B.M.L.R. 14, at [99].
    • (2003) 80 B.M.L.R , vol.14 , pp. 99
  • 126
    • 85012563561 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • In 243, Lord Browne-Wilkinson referred to the occasion for the court's contrary decision as “very seldom” occurring
    • In Bolitho itself [1998] A.C. 232, 243, Lord Browne-Wilkinson referred to the occasion for the court's contrary decision as “very seldom” occurring.
    • (1998) A.C , pp. 232
  • 127
    • 85012530031 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Reiterated in: (Q.B.), at
    • Reiterated in: M v. Blackpool Victoria Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2003] EWHC 1744 (Q.B.), at [42].
    • (2003) EWHC , vol.1744 , pp. 42
  • 128
    • 85012474600 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 17th ed., (London Academic commentary has also suggested that the application of Bolitho would occur in “the very rare case”: at
    • Academic commentary has also suggested that the application of Bolitho would occur in “the very rare case”: W. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort,17th ed., (London 2008), at [5.56]
    • (2008) on Tort , pp. 5.56
  • 130
    • 85012435589 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • French v. Thames Valley Strategic H.A. [2005] EWHC 459 (Q.B.), at [112]
    • (2005) EWHC , vol.459 , pp. 112
  • 131
    • 85012538648 scopus 로고
    • 397 (Sachs L.J.)
    • Hucks v. Cole [1993] 4 Med. L.R. 393, 397 (Sachs L.J.).
    • (1993) 4 Med. L.R , pp. 393
  • 132
    • 85012551465 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at [34] (Simon Brown L.J.)
    • Calver v. Westwood Veterinary Group(2000) 58 B.M.L.R. 194, at [31], [34] (Simon Brown L.J.).
    • (2000) 58 B.M.L.R , vol.194 , pp. 31
  • 133
    • 85012509803 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • EWHC 644 (Q.B.)
    • at
    • AB v. Leeds Teaching Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 644 (Q.B.), 77 B.M.L.R. 145, at [226].
    • (2004) 77 B.M.L.R , vol.145 , pp. 226
  • 134
    • 85012546788 scopus 로고
    • See, e.g. 16 June
    • See, e.g.: Kushnir v. Camden & Islington H.A. (Q.B., 16 June 1995)
    • (1995) Q.B
  • 135
    • 85012508137 scopus 로고
    • citing: 392 (Dillon L.J.)
    • citing: Bolitho v. City and Hackney H.A. [1993] 4 Med. L.R. 381, 392 (Dillon L.J.).
    • (1993) 4 Med. L.R , pp. 381
  • 136
    • 85012444402 scopus 로고
    • Note, however, the disapproval in: [no pp available] (“it does not assist to introduce concepts from administrative law such as the Wednesbury test; such tests are directed to very different problems and their use, even by analogy, in negligence cases can. only serve to confuse”)
    • Note, however, the disapproval in: Joyce v. Merton Sutton and Wandsworth H.A. (1995) 27 B.M.L.R. 124, [no pp available] (“it does not assist to introduce concepts from administrative law such as the Wednesbury test; such tests are directed to very different problems and their use, even by analogy, in negligence cases can. only serve to confuse”)
    • (1995) 27 B.M.L.R , pp. 124
  • 137
    • 0004173783 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • and the criticism by noted commentators such as: 3rd ed., (London
    • and the criticism by noted commentators such as: I. Kennedy and A. Grubb, Medical Law,3rd ed., (London 2000), p. 442.
    • (2000) Medical Law , pp. 442
    • Kennedy, I.1    Grubb, A.2
  • 138
    • 85012496859 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B)
    • [2006] EWHC 2880 (Q.B)
    • (2006) EWHC , pp. 2880
  • 139
    • 85012508632 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (2007) 93 B.M.L.R. 166.
    • (2007) 93 B.M.L.R , pp. 166
  • 140
    • 0004146433 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 4th ed., (London A point also noted in, e.g.: fn. 65
    • A point also noted in, e.g.: M. Jones, Medical Negligence,4th ed., (London 2008), p. 241, fn. 65.
    • (2008) Medical Negligence , pp. 241
    • Jones, M.1
  • 141
    • 0004146433 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at The expert opinion given by the neurosurgeon called on behalf of the defendant GP was in accordance with Bolam, and the court expressly disavowed Bolitho from applying: at [105]-[106]
    • Medical Negligence., at [33]. The expert opinion given by the neurosurgeon called on behalf of the defendant GP was in accordance with Bolam, and the court expressly disavowed Bolitho from applying: at [105]-[106].
    • Medical Negligence , pp. 33
  • 142
    • 85012427301 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [2002] 2 S.L.R. 414.
    • (2002) 2 S.L.R , pp. 414
  • 143
    • 85012430360 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 2 S.L.R., at [65].
    • 2 S.L.R , pp. 65
  • 144
    • 85012501221 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (1996) 27 B.M.L.R. 124.
    • (1996) 27 B.M.L.R , pp. 124
  • 145
    • 0004079566 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Also pointed out in, e.g.: 2nd ed., (Oxford
    • Also pointed out in, e.g.: J. Montgomery, Health Care Law,2nd ed., (Oxford 2003), p. 176.
    • (2003) Health Care Law , pp. 176
    • Montgomery, J.1
  • 146
    • 85012435282 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Health Care Law., at p. 144.
  • 147
    • 85012493804 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 15 December [nopp] (“This was, in my judgment, a borderline case, and although. [the defendant senior neurosurgeon] can immerse himselfin aschool ofthought which would have condoned intervention here, I ambound to say that I think that school was very much in the minority”; no breach on the basis ofnegligent treatment; there was, however, a failure to disclose risks)
    • McCallister v. Lewisham and North Southwark H.A. (Q.B., 15 December 1993), [nopp] (“This was, in my judgment, a borderline case, and although. [the defendant senior neurosurgeon] can immerse himselfin aschool ofthought which would have condoned intervention here, I ambound to say that I think that school was very much in the minority”; no breach on the basis ofnegligent treatment; there was, however, a failure to disclose risks).
    • Q.B , pp. 1993
  • 148
    • 85012481029 scopus 로고
    • See, too, e.g.: (only 11 specialist spinal surgeons in England could constitute a body of peer opinion as to whether surgery on the patient was accepted medical practice)
    • See, too, e.g.: De Freitas v. O Brien (1995) 25 B.M.L.R. 51 (only 11 specialist spinal surgeons in England could constitute a body of peer opinion as to whether surgery on the patient was accepted medical practice).
    • (1995) 25 B.M.L.R , pp. 51
  • 149
    • 85012435589 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at (emphasis added)
    • [2005] EWHC 459 (Q.B.), at [112] (emphasis added).
    • (2005) EWHC , vol.459 , pp. 112
  • 150
    • 85012538648 scopus 로고
    • [1993] 4 Med. L.R. 393
    • (1993) 4 Med. L.R , pp. 393
  • 151
    • 0348053162 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • and hence, a “long overlooked” decision: 4th ed., (Oxford
    • and hence, a “long overlooked” decision: M. Lunney and K. Oliphant, Tort Law: Text and Materials,4th ed., (Oxford 2010), p. 2020.
    • (2010) Tort Law: Text and Materials , pp. 2020
    • Lunney, M.1    Oliphant, K.2
  • 153
    • 85012438337 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at A point also made recently in: per Leveson L.J., referring to Hucks v. Cole as exemplifying the “group” of Bolitho cases
    • A point also made recently in: Ministry ofJustice v. Carter [2010] EWCA Civ 694, at [22], per Leveson L.J., referring to Hucks v. Cole as exemplifying the “group” of Bolitho cases.
    • (2010) EWCA Civ , vol.694 , pp. 22
  • 154
    • 85012428971 scopus 로고
    • 9 September (legal negligence case for allowing action in medical negligence to be struck out for want of prosecution; clear precaution, when confronted with an invasive malignancy in a patient, was to consult others with wider experience, instead of proceeding to radical treatment by external pelvic irradiation; “some prospect” of showing negligence)
    • Gascoine v. Ian Sheridan and Co. (Q.B., 9 September 1994) (legal negligence case for allowing action in medical negligence to be struck out for want of prosecution; clear precaution, when confronted with an invasive malignancy in a patient, was to consult others with wider experience, instead of proceeding to radical treatment by external pelvic irradiation; “some prospect” of showing negligence).
    • (1994) Q.B
  • 155
    • 35748968744 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (child A born with a hydrocephalic condition that required him to be fitted with a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt, which continuously drained excess fluid from the brain cavity, and of which any blockage was potentially critical; clear precaution was for the defendant GP to ask a series of “closed” or leading questions (e.g., was A vomiting, or experiencing headaches?), rather than asking open questions that lead to an incorrect diagnosis of upper respiratory infection; shunt was blocked, and A suffered heart attack and brain damage). A retrial was ordered, on the basis that the medical experts had not been asked to address the Bolitho point; this was necessary before a court could apply Bolitho and reject the GP's expert evidence
    • Burne v. A [2006] EWCA Civ 24 (child A born with a hydrocephalic condition that required him to be fitted with a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt, which continuously drained excess fluid from the brain cavity, and of which any blockage was potentially critical; clear precaution was for the defendant GP to ask a series of “closed” or leading questions (e.g., was A vomiting, or experiencing headaches?), rather than asking open questions that lead to an incorrect diagnosis of upper respiratory infection; shunt was blocked, and A suffered heart attack and brain damage). A retrial was ordered, on the basis that the medical experts had not been asked to address the Bolitho point; this was necessary before a court could apply Bolitho and reject the GP's expert evidence.
    • (2006) EWCA Civ , pp. 24
  • 156
    • 85012477824 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Q.B.
    • Farraj v. King's Healthcare N.H.S. Trust [2008] EWHC 2468 (Q.B.).
    • (2008) EWHC , pp. 2468
  • 157
    • 85012447263 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (where cervical smear slides demonstrated observable abnormalities, clear precaution was not to designate the slide as “negative”, but to only assign negative status to a slide if there could be “absolute confidence” that it had no abnormalities; failure by cytoscreeners to adopt that clear precaution rendered their practice of assigning negative status illogical)
    • Penney v. East Kent H.A. [2000] Lloyd's Med. L.R. 41 (where cervical smear slides demonstrated observable abnormalities, clear precaution was not to designate the slide as “negative”, but to only assign negative status to a slide if there could be “absolute confidence” that it had no abnormalities; failure by cytoscreeners to adopt that clear precaution rendered their practice of assigning negative status illogical).
    • (2000) Lloyd's Med. L.R , pp. 41
  • 158
    • 85012472400 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (2001) 62 B.M.L.R. 69.
    • (2001) 62 B.M.L.R , pp. 69
  • 159
    • 85012548418 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Q.B.
    • [2004] EWHC 1198 (Q.B.).
    • (2004) EWHC , pp. 1198
  • 160
    • 85012462692 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at See too: (noting that one expert “clearly treats animals more defensively” than the other; “Both opinions, however, seem to me clearly capable of logical support and in that situation there is no room for a finding of negligence”; no breach found on appeal)
    • See too: Calver v. Westwood Veterinary Group [2001] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 20, at [34] (noting that one expert “clearly treats animals more defensively” than the other; “Both opinions, however, seem to me clearly capable of logical support and in that situation there is no room for a finding of negligence”; no breach found on appeal).
    • (2001) Lloyd's Rep. Med , vol.20 , pp. 34
  • 162
    • 85012456548 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • [2005] EWHC 459 (Q.B.), at [113].
    • (2005) EWHC , vol.459 , pp. 113
  • 163
    • 85012567673 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Q.B.
    • G v. Central and North West London Mental Health N.H.S. Trust [2007] EWHC 3068 (Q.B.).
    • (2007) EWHC , pp. 3068
  • 164
    • 85012493981 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • EWHC., at [152].
    • EWHC , pp. 152
  • 165
    • 85012525849 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Q.B.
    • [2006] EWHC 2314 (Q.B.).
    • (2006) EWHC , pp. 2314
  • 166
    • 85012549900 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • EWHC., at [88].
    • EWHC , pp. 88
  • 167
    • 85012445602 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • EWHC., at [91].
    • EWHC , pp. 91
  • 168
    • 85012557353 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • EWHC., at [92]-[93].
    • EWHC , pp. 92-93
  • 169
    • 85012448838 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at per Judge Shaun Spencer Q.C.
    • EWHC., at [94]-[95], per Judge Shaun Spencer Q.C.
    • EWHC , pp. 94-95
  • 170
    • 85012449360 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • citing: 690, per Lord Hoffmann
    • citing: Arthur J.S. Hall & Co. (a firm) v. Simons [2002] 1 A.C. 615, 690, per Lord Hoffmann.
    • (2002) 1 A.C , pp. 615
  • 171
    • 85012542983 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 1 A.C., at [96].
    • 1 A.C , pp. 96
  • 172
    • 85012456548 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at (“Mrs French's doctors had to balance her interests and those of the Claimant [newly born daughter], but the balancing is to some extent skewed in favour of the mother”; no breach of duty found)
    • French v. Thames Valley Strategic H.A. [2005] EWHC 459 (Q.B.), at [113] (“Mrs French's doctors had to balance her interests and those of the Claimant [newly born daughter], but the balancing is to some extent skewed in favour of the mother”; no breach of duty found).
    • (2005) EWHC , vol.459 , pp. 113
  • 173
    • 85012427429 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at Competing obstetric emergencies meant that one mother/baby was not attended to in time to prevent brain damage to the baby in, e.g.: (no breach; court satisfied that conduct of attendant obstetrician “represent a sensible and realistic approach”)
    • Competing obstetric emergencies meant that one mother/baby was not attended to in time to prevent brain damage to the baby in, e.g.: DA v. North East London Strategic H.A. [2005] EWHC 950 (Q.B.), at [95] (no breach; court satisfied that conduct of attendant obstetrician “represent a sensible and realistic approach”).
    • (2005) EWHC , vol.950 , pp. 95
  • 174
    • 85012460935 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Also: (Q.B.) (no breach)
    • Also: Smithers v. Taunton and Somerset N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 1179 (Q.B.) (no breach).
    • (2004) EWHC , pp. 1179
  • 175
    • 85012529567 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 241–42
    • Bolitho v. City and Hackney H.A. [1998] A.C. 232, 241–42.
    • (1998) A.C , pp. 232
  • 176
    • 85012569275 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • A direct finding that a comparison was undertaken, and no breach found, occurred, e.g., in
    • A direct finding that a comparison was undertaken, and no breach found, occurred, e.g., in: Sutcliffe v. BMI Healthcare Ltd. [2007] EWCA Civ 476
    • (2007) EWCA Civ , vol.476
  • 177
  • 178
    • 85012563553 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Zarb v. Odetoyinbo [2006] EWHC 2880
    • (2006) EWHC , pp. 2880
  • 179
    • 85012479757 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at [100], [106]
    • 93 B.M.L.R. 166 (Q.B.), at [84], [100], [106]
    • 93 B.M.L.R , vol.166 , pp. 84
  • 180
    • 85012456548 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • French v. Thames Valley Strategic H.A. [2005] EWHC 459 (Q.B.), at [113]
    • (2005) EWHC , vol.459 , pp. 113
  • 181
    • 85012488104 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Ju v. See Tho Kai Yin [2005] SGHC 140
    • (2005) SGHC , pp. 140
  • 182
    • 85012532226 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • [2005] 4 S.L.R. 96, at [65]
    • (2005) 4 S.L.R , vol.96 , pp. 65
  • 183
    • 85012553466 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • Burke v. Gillard [2003] EWHC 2362 (Q.B.), at [84]
    • (2003) EWHC , vol.2362 , pp. 84
  • 184
    • 85012513106 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.)
    • Ev. Castro [2003] EWHC 2066 (Q.B.)
    • (2003) EWHC , pp. 2066
  • 185
    • 85012563798 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 80 B.M.L.R. 14, at [186]
    • 80 B.M.L.R , vol.14 , pp. 186
  • 186
    • 85012481712 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Ocloo v. Royal Brompton and Harefield N.H.S. Trust (2001) 68 B.M.L.R. 89, at [62]
    • (2001) 68 B.M.L.R , vol.89 , pp. 62
  • 187
    • 85012504462 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 31 July at
    • Mirza v. Birmingham H.A. (Q.B., 31 July 2001), at [71]
    • (2001) Q.B , pp. 71
  • 188
    • 85012548432 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Zinzuwadia v. Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ 842, at [11]
    • (2001) EWCA Civ , vol.842 , pp. 11
  • 189
    • 85012472122 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 10 November
    • Julien v. East London and City H.A. (Q.B., 10 November 2000)
    • (2000) Q.B
  • 190
    • 85012442494 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 6 March
    • Brown v. Lewisham and North Southwark H.A. (Q.B., 6 March 1998)
    • (1998) Q.B
  • 191
    • 85012542398 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 8 April
    • Hallatt v. North West Anglia H.A. (C.A., 8 April 1998)
    • (1998) C.A
  • 192
    • 85012552702 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 26 November
    • Ashard v. Cambridge H.A. (Q.B., 26 November 1999)
    • (1999) Q.B
  • 193
    • 85012554327 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Brooks v. Home Office [1999] 2 F.L.R. 33
    • (1999) 2 F.L.R , pp. 33
  • 194
  • 195
    • 85012504904 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • [2008] EWHC 2237 (Q.B.), at [55].
    • (2008) EWHC , vol.2237 , pp. 55
  • 196
    • 85012532448 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Khoo v. Gunapathy d/o Muniandy [2002] 2 S.L.R. 414, at [64].
    • (2002) 2 S.L.R , vol.414 , pp. 64
  • 197
    • 85012542204 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at e.g.: (decision to discharge patient, with multiple risk factors for coronary disease and low tolerance for exercise, not logically sustainable; risk/benefit calculation pointed “overwhelmingly” in favour of proceeding to a thallium scan)
    • e.g.: Mellor v. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 780 (Q.B.), at [244]-[245] (decision to discharge patient, with multiple risk factors for coronary disease and low tolerance for exercise, not logically sustainable; risk/benefit calculation pointed “overwhelmingly” in favour of proceeding to a thallium scan)
    • (2004) EWHC , vol.780 , pp. 244-245
  • 198
    • 85012490004 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at 30 May (for reasons of risk of infection, no vaginal examination performed upon pregnant woman who presented with complications; child asphyxiated during birth; failure to examine did not withstand logical analysis, given extremely minimal risk of such infection)
    • Reynolds v. North Tyneside H.A. (Q.B., 30 May 2002), at [47] (for reasons of risk of infection, no vaginal examination performed upon pregnant woman who presented with complications; child asphyxiated during birth; failure to examine did not withstand logical analysis, given extremely minimal risk of such infection)
    • (2002) Q.B , pp. 47
  • 199
    • 85012508891 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (patient suffered head injury in fall; GP failed to refer patient for further neurological tests when, 8 days later, he was presenting with headaches, lethargy and lack of appetite; patient suffered paralysis from intracranial lesion; GP's expert evidence said it was reasonable to leave patient at home, with instructions to wife to telephone if husband's condition worsened; this lacked logical analysis, and patient should have been admitted to hospital for neurological testing and observation, especially when risks of not doing so were so catastrophic, and when facilities for performing scans, etc, were so readily available)
    • Marriott v. West Midlands H.A. [1999] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 23, 26–27 (patient suffered head injury in fall; GP failed to refer patient for further neurological tests when, 8 days later, he was presenting with headaches, lethargy and lack of appetite; patient suffered paralysis from intracranial lesion; GP's expert evidence said it was reasonable to leave patient at home, with instructions to wife to telephone if husband's condition worsened; this lacked logical analysis, and patient should have been admitted to hospital for neurological testing and observation, especially when risks of not doing so were so catastrophic, and when facilities for performing scans, etc, were so readily available)
    • (1999) Lloyd's Rep. Med , vol.23 , pp. 26-27
  • 200
    • 85012485098 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at (re the so-called “ten-minute-rule”, whereby at onset of significant foetal bradycardia, baby must be delivered within ten minutes, failing which risk of irreversible brain damage; newborn suffered brain damage due to oxygen deprivation during birth; obstetrician's expert evidence was that it was acceptable medical practice to have proceeded to further traction rather than perform a caesarean section; but any suggestion that longer than 10 minutes was an appropriate objective was “incapable of withstanding logical analysis”)
    • Purver v. Winchester andEastleigh Healthcare N.H.S. Trust [2007] EWHC 34 (Q.B.), at [64] (re the so-called “ten-minute-rule”, whereby at onset of significant foetal bradycardia, baby must be delivered within ten minutes, failing which risk of irreversible brain damage; newborn suffered brain damage due to oxygen deprivation during birth; obstetrician's expert evidence was that it was acceptable medical practice to have proceeded to further traction rather than perform a caesarean section; but any suggestion that longer than 10 minutes was an appropriate objective was “incapable of withstanding logical analysis”)
    • (2007) EWHC , vol.34 , pp. 64
  • 201
    • 85012442666 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (County Court (Wandsworth)) (following routine hysterectomy, patient's ureter blocked and damaged; explanation for that damage provided by surgeon's expert testimony not a “good and sufficient explanation”, despite complexities of operation; negligence found)
    • Bouchta v. Swindon [1996] 7 Med. L.R. 62 (County Court (Wandsworth)) (following routine hysterectomy, patient's ureter blocked and damaged; explanation for that damage provided by surgeon's expert testimony not a “good and sufficient explanation”, despite complexities of operation; negligence found)
    • (1996) 7 Med. L.R , pp. 62
  • 202
    • 85012541040 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.) (patient sustained severe brain injury after suffering cardiac arrest at A&E department while unmonitored; hospital failed to urgently request results of blood sample for CPK enzyme; CPK results would have resolved any difficulty with diagnosis; no logical reason why CPK result could not have been expedited)
    • Hanson v. Airedale Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2003] C.L.Y. 2989 (Q.B.) (patient sustained severe brain injury after suffering cardiac arrest at A&E department while unmonitored; hospital failed to urgently request results of blood sample for CPK enzyme; CPK results would have resolved any difficulty with diagnosis; no logical reason why CPK result could not have been expedited).
    • (2003) C.L.Y , pp. 2989
  • 203
    • 85012517827 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.)
    • [2005] EWHC 2253 (Q.B.)
    • (2005) EWHC , pp. 2253
  • 205
    • 85012462277 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Cited and applied in part in
    • Cited and applied in part in: Purver, 87 B.M.L.R.
    • 87 B.M.L.R
    • Purver1
  • 207
    • 85012482558 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.)
    • [2006] EWHC 2314 (Q.B.).
    • (2006) EWHC , pp. 2314
  • 208
    • 85012447443 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • EWHC 2314., at [95]-[96].
    • EWHC , vol.2314 , pp. 95-96
  • 209
    • 85012454308 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at See, e.g.: no breach
    • See, e.g.: Smithers v. Taunton and Somerset N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 1179 (Q.B.), at [53(vi)] (no breach)
    • (2004) EWHC , vol.1179 , Issue.vi , pp. 53
  • 210
    • 85012427429 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at no breach
    • DA v. North East London Strategic H.A. [2005] EWHC 950 (Q.B.), at [95] (no breach).
    • (2005) EWHC , vol.950 , pp. 95
  • 211
    • 85012485905 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 27 May
    • Q.B., 27 May 2004.
    • (2004) Q.B
  • 212
    • 85012471391 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Q.B., at [27]-[28].
    • Q.B , pp. 27-28
  • 213
    • 85012473776 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • Q.B., at [30].
    • Q.B , pp. 30
  • 214
    • 85012491178 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at with Sedley L.J.'s dissenting opinion at [19]
    • Adams v. Rhymney Valley DC [2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 777, at [43], with Sedley L.J.'s dissenting opinion at [19].
    • (2000) Lloyd's Rep. P.N , vol.777 , pp. 43
  • 215
    • 85012467785 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See Group Litigation Order No. 9, at: . The title of the litigation was: (Q.B.)
    • See Group Litigation Order No. 9, at: . The title of the litigation was: AB v. Leeds Teaching Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 644 (Q.B.)
    • (2004) EWHC , pp. 644
  • 216
  • 217
    • 85012516239 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 77 B.M.L.R., at [213].
    • 77 B.M.L.R , pp. 213
  • 218
    • 85012516239 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at 217
    • 77 B.M.L.R., at [215], [217].
    • 77 B.M.L.R , pp. 215
  • 219
    • 85012516239 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 77 B.M.L.R., at [237].
    • 77 B.M.L.R , pp. 237
  • 220
    • 85012516239 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 77 B.M.L.R., at [240].
    • 77 B.M.L.R , pp. 240
  • 221
    • 85012516239 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (a point made during the course of the claimants' submissions)
    • 77 B.M.L.R., at [220] (a point made during the course of the claimants' submissions).
    • 77 B.M.L.R , pp. 220
  • 222
    • 85012528155 scopus 로고
    • (P.C.)
    • Bank of Montreal v. Dominion Gresham Guarantee and Casualty Co. (Canada) Ltd. [1930] Q.C. 659 (P.C.) 666.
    • (1930) Q.C , vol.659 , pp. 666
  • 223
    • 0344581989 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?
    • at emphasis added
    • Lord Woolf, “Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?” (2001) 9 Med. L. Rev. 1, at 1 (emphasis added).
    • (2001) 9 Med. L. Rev , vol.1 , pp. 1
    • Woolf, L.1
  • 224
    • 84860491174 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [2005] EWCA Civ 1466.
    • (2005) EWCA Civ , pp. 1466
  • 225
    • 85007975670 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (Buxton L.J.)
    • EWCA Civ., at [106] (Buxton L.J.).
    • EWCA Civ , pp. 106
  • 226
    • 33644990676 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.) (mis-diagnosis of serious suicide risk)
    • Drake v. Pontefract H.A. [1998] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 425 (Q.B.) (mis-diagnosis of serious suicide risk)
    • (1998) Lloyd's Rep. Med , pp. 425
  • 227
    • 85012517367 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.) (mis-diagnosis of serious cardiac disease)
    • Mellor v. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 780 (Q.B.) (mis-diagnosis of serious cardiac disease).
    • (2004) EWHC , pp. 780
  • 228
    • 85012469594 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • [2007] EWHC 509 (Q.B.), at [64].
    • (2007) EWHC , vol.509 , pp. 64
  • 229
    • 85012535769 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • EWHC 509., at [75].
    • EWHC , vol.509 , pp. 75
  • 230
    • 85012464752 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 4 July (pregnant woman discharged from hospital into care of community midwife; sent back to hospital and readmitted the following day; breach of duty)
    • Ogwang v. Redbridge Healthcare N.H.S. Trust (Q.B., 4 July 2003) (pregnant woman discharged from hospital into care of community midwife; sent back to hospital and readmitted the following day; breach of duty).
    • (2003) Q.B
  • 231
    • 85012456020 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • [2002] 2 S.L.R. 414, at [65]-[66].
    • (2002) 2 S.L.R , vol.414 , pp. 65-66
  • 232
    • 85012482382 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 2 S.L.R., at [65].
    • 2 S.L.R , pp. 65
  • 233
    • 85012563825 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • [1998] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 425, at [34].
    • (1998) Lloyd's Rep. Med , vol.425 , pp. 34
  • 234
    • 85012564779 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at 23 June [24]
    • Glicksman v. Redbridge Health Care N.H.S. Trust (Q.B., 23 June 2000), at [14], [24].
    • (2000) Q.B , pp. 14
  • 235
    • 84879434634 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • The trial judge rejected the defendant surgeon's expert evidence, and found breach; but liability was set aside on appeal, because of a lack of reasoned rebuttal of the experts' views in the trial judge's decision
    • The trial judge rejected the defendant surgeon's expert evidence, and found breach; but liability was set aside on appeal, because of a lack of reasoned rebuttal of the experts' views in the trial judge's decision: [2001] EWCA Civ 1097
    • (2001) EWCA Civ , pp. 1097
  • 236
  • 237
    • 85012440906 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 4 July at
    • Ogwang v. Redbridge Healthcare N.H.S. Trust (Q.B., 4 July 2003), at [39].
    • (2003) Q.B , pp. 39
  • 238
    • 85012440801 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • Antoniades v. East Sussex Hospitals N.H.S. Trust [2007] EWHC 517 (Q.B.), at [73].
    • (2007) EWHC , vol.517 , pp. 73
  • 239
    • 85012541344 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.)
    • AB v. Leeds Teaching Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2004] EWHC 644 (Q.B.)
    • (2004) EWHC , pp. 644
  • 240
  • 241
    • 85012516239 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 77 B.M.L.R., at [235].
    • 77 B.M.L.R , pp. 235
  • 242
    • 85012453863 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [2007] EWCA Civ 387.
    • (2007) EWCA Civ , pp. 387
  • 243
    • 85012533626 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Q.B.
    • (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1114 (Q.B.).
    • (2006) 150 S.J.L.B , pp. 1114
  • 244
    • 85012540715 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1114 (Q.B.), at [35].
    • (2006) 150 S.J.L.B , vol.1114 , pp. 35
  • 245
    • 85012527958 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • [2007] EWCA Civ 387, at [41]
    • (2007) EWCA Civ , vol.387 , pp. 41
  • 246
    • 85012490755 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at and see too for the trial judgment
    • and see too, (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1114 (Q.B.), at [60]-[62] for the trial judgment.
    • (2006) 150 S.J.L.B , vol.1114 , pp. 60-62
  • 247
    • 85012459489 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at emphasis added
    • 150 S.J.L.B., at [44] (emphasis added).
    • 150 S.J.L.B , pp. 44
  • 248
    • 85012459489 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • 150 S.J.L.B., at [78].
    • 150 S.J.L.B , pp. 78
  • 249
    • 85012445023 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See also the criticism of the expert's use of the wrong standard in: 19 July
    • See also the criticism of the expert's use of the wrong standard in: Ng Yuk Ha v. Yip Siu Keung (H.K.C.F.I., 19 July 2005).
    • (2005) H.K.C.F.I
  • 250
    • 85012440613 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [1998] A.C. 232, 243.
    • (1998) A.C , vol.232 , pp. 243
  • 251
    • 85012440903 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [1998] EWCA Civ 596
    • (1998) EWCA Civ , pp. 596
  • 252
    • 85012459986 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • [1998] P.I.Q.R. P324.
    • (1998) P.I.Q.R , pp. P324
  • 253
    • 85012546984 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at
    • P.I.Q.R., at 336.
    • P.I.Q.R , pp. 336
  • 254
    • 85012518217 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See, e.g.: (Q.B.)
    • See, e.g.: Cowley v. Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic H.A. [2007] EWHC 48 (Q.B.)
    • (2007) EWHC , pp. 48
  • 255
    • 85012436321 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • at (no Bolitho application; no breach)
    • 94 B.M.L.R. 29, at [55] (no Bolitho application; no breach)
    • 94 B.M.L.R , vol.29 , pp. 55
  • 256
    • 85012543630 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • Ndri v. Moorfields Eye Hospital N.H.S. Trust [2006] EWHC 3652 (Q.B.), at [35]
    • (2006) EWHC , vol.3652 , pp. 35
  • 257
    • 85012509154 scopus 로고
    • 4 April (“Honest and brilliant gynaecologists called in this case have given different opinions. One group enculpates, one group exculpates Mr Cooke”
    • Sellers v. Cooke (Q.B., 4 April 1989) (“Honest and brilliant gynaecologists called in this case have given different opinions. One group enculpates, one group exculpates Mr Cooke”
    • (1989) Q.B
  • 258
    • 85012429883 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at no breach on main allegation); (“The challenge facing the Claimant is a high one, given the qualifications of [the neurosurgeon called to give evidence on behalf of the defendant GP]”)
    • no breach on main allegation); Zarb v. Odetoyinbo [2006] EWHC 2880 (Q.B.), at [34] (“The challenge facing the Claimant is a high one, given the qualifications of [the neurosurgeon called to give evidence on behalf of the defendant GP]”).
    • EWHC , vol.2880 , pp. 34
  • 260
    • 85012544110 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Beyond Bolam and Bolitho
    • at
    • A. Maclean, “Beyond Bolam and Bolitho” (2002) 5 Med. Law Intl. 205, at 222.
    • (2002) 5 Med. Law Intl , vol.205 , pp. 222
    • Maclean, A.1
  • 261
    • 85012562002 scopus 로고
    • e.g.
    • e.g., Townsend v. Worcester and District H.A. (1994) 23 B.M.L.R. 31, 45
    • (1994) 23 B.M.L.R , vol.31 , pp. 45
  • 262
    • 33644990676 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at [last para]
    • Nawoor v. Barking Havering and Brentwood H.A. [1998] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 313 (Q.B.), at [last para]
    • (1998) Lloyd's Rep. Med , pp. 313
  • 263
    • 85012530912 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (Q.B.), at
    • Goby v. Ferguson [2009] EWHC 92 (Q.B.), at [103].
    • (2009) EWHC , vol.92 , pp. 103


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.