|
Professional Negligence In English Law
In the English law of tort, professional negligence is a subset of the general rules on negligence to cover the situation in which the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. The usual rules rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise. Sources of legal liability for professionals Liability of provider of professional services towards their client (and potentially third parties) can arise on a number of differe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Law
English law is the common law list of national legal systems, legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly English criminal law, criminal law and Civil law (common law), civil law, each branch having its own Courts of England and Wales, courts and Procedural law, procedures. The judiciary is judicial independence, independent, and legal principles like Procedural justice, fairness, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial are foundational to the system. Principal elements Although the common law has, historically, been the foundation and prime source of English law, the most authoritative law is statutory legislation, which comprises Act of Parliament, Acts of Parliament, Statutory Instrument, regulations and by-laws. In the absence of any statutory law, the common law with its principle of ''stare decisis'' forms the residual source of law, based on judicial decisions, custom, and usage. Common law is made by sitting judges who apply both United Kingdom l ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Thake V Maurice
''Thake v Maurice'' 986QB 644 is an English contract law case, concerning the standard of care that must be exercised by surgeons in performing operations. Facts Mr Thake was a railway guard and they were not financially comfortable with five children already (two grown up), living in a three-bedroom council house. Mrs Thake wanted to be sterilised, but the NHS waiting list was long and they could not afford to go private. Their doctor suggested Mr Thake have a vasectomy and arranged for them to see Mr Maurice. He did not advise Mrs Thake that there was a small chance that after a vasectomy there could be recanalisation and Mr Thake would become fertile again. Mrs Thake ignored the signs of pregnancy because she thought it had worked, and then only realised when she was five months pregnant. She wanted an abortion, but it was too late, and a healthy child was born, Samantha. They sued in contract and tort for damages. Judgment The Court of Appeal held that a normal, reason ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tom Bingham, Baron Bingham Of Cornhill
Thomas Henry Bingham, Baron Bingham of Cornhill (13 October 193311 September 2010) was a British judge who was successively Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord. On his death in 2010, he was described as the greatest judge of his generation. Baroness Hale of Richmond observed that his pioneering role in the formation of the United Kingdom Supreme Court may be his most important and long-lasting legacy.Mads Andenas and Duncan Fairgrieve, ''Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law'' (2009) p 209. The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers regarded Bingham as "one of the two great legal figures of my lifetime in the law" (the other figure, in context, being Lord Denning).Mads Andenas and Duncan Fairgrieve, ''Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law'' (2009) xlvii. Lord Hope of Craighead described Bingham as "the greatest jurist of our time". After retiring from the judiciary in 2008, Bingham focused on teaching, writing, and lecturing on legal sub ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
White V Jones
is a leading English tort law case concerning professional negligence and the conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another. Facts Two daughters of the deceased Mr Barratt (one of them married a man named White) sued Mr Jones for failing to follow their father's instructions when drawing up his will. Mr Barratt and his daughters had fallen out briefly and he asked the solicitor to cut them out of the will. Before he died they resolved their problems. He asked Mr Jones to change the will again so that £9000 would be given to his daughters. After he died, with the will still the same, the family would not agree to have the settlement changed. The question was whether Mr Jones could be sued instead. Judgment Lord Goff held with a majority of three to two in the House of Lords that the daughters would be able to claim. Influenced by the idea that solicitors may escape the consequences of not doing their job properly, he sa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Donoghue V Stevenson
''Donoghue v Stevenson'' [1932] AC 562 was a Lists of landmark court decisions, landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers. Prior to ''Donoghue v Steven ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Michael Sachs (judge)
Sir Michael Alexander Geddes Sachs (8 April 1932 – 25 September 2003) was a British jurist who was the first solicitor to be appointed as a High Court judge. Early life Sachs was born in Glasgow, the son of a GP Joseph Sachs and his wife, Ruby Mary Ross, a nurse. He was raised in Penrith and educated at Appleby Grammar School and Sedbergh School. He read law at Manchester University and took his articles at Slater, Heelis & Co in Manchester. Career After qualifying as a solicitor, and then undertaking National Service, he returned to Slater Heelis in 1959 to work on crime, family, personal injury and common law matters. He became a partner at Slater Heelis in 1962. He acted for defendants charged with offences relating to IRA bombings in the 1970s. He was president of Manchester Law Society in 1978-9, a member of the Law Society Council from 1979 to 1984, and chairman of the Law Society's standing committee on criminal law from 1982 to 1984. His judicial career bega ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judge
A judge is a person who wiktionary:preside, presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a judicial panel. In an adversarial system, the judge hears all the witnesses and any other Evidence (law), evidence presented by the barristers or solicitors of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a Court order, ruling in the Case law, case based on their Judicial interpretation, interpretation of the law and their own personal judgment. A judge is expected to conduct the trial impartially and, typically, in an in open court, open court. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might also be an examining magistrate. The presiding judge ensures that all court proceedings are lawful and orderly. Powers and functions The ult ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Medical Malpractice
Medical malpractice is a legal cause of action that occurs when a medical or health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, deviates from standards in their profession, thereby causing injury or death to a patient. The negligence might arise from errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare or health management. An act of medical malpractice usually has three characteristics. Firstly, it must be proven that the treatment has not been consistent with the standard of care, which is the standard medical treatment accepted and recognized by the profession. Secondly, it must be proven that the patient has suffered some kind of injury due to the negligence. In other words, an injury without negligence or an act of negligence without causing any injury cannot be considered malpractice. Thirdly, it must be proven that the injury resulted in significant damages such as disability, unusual pain, suffering, hardship, loss of income or a significant burden of medical bills. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ratio Decidendi
' (; Latin plural ') is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision". The ''ratio decidendi'' is "the point in a case that determines the judgement" or "the principle that the case establishes".See Barron's Law Dictionary, page 385 (2d ed. 1984). ''ratio decidendi'' is a legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a judgment on which the outcome of the case depends. It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike '' obiter dicta'', the ''ratio decidendi'' is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of '' stare decisis''. Certain courts are able to overrule decisions of a court of coordinate jurisdiction. However, out of interests of judicial comity, they generally try to follow coordinate rationes. The process of determining the ''ratio decidendi' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd V Heller & Partners Ltd
''Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd'' 964AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility". Facts Hedley Byrne were a firm of advertising agents. A customer, Easipower Ltd, put in a large order. Hedley Byrne wanted to check their financial position, and creditworthiness, and so asked their bank, to acquire a report from Easipower’s bank, Heller & Partners Ltd., who replied in a letter that was headed, "without responsibility on the part of this bank" ...Easipower is, "considered good for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee
''Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee'' 9571 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent. ''Bolam'' was rejected in the 2015 Supreme Court decision of ''Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board'' in matters of informed consent. Facts Mr Bolam was a voluntary patient at Friern Hospital, a mental health institution run by the Friern Hospital Management Committee. He agreed to undergo electro-convulsive therapy. He was not given any muscle relaxant, and his body was not restrained during the procedure. He flailed about violently before the procedure was stopped, and he suffered some serious injuries, including fractures of the acetabula. He sued the committee for compensati ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
