The Court of Appeal held that it was arguably fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances.

The claimant underwent a procedure to diagnose and treat gall bladder obstruction and subsequently developed pancreatitis. Further failures of care and inadequate resuscitation left her in a seriously weakened condition.

The defendant argued that the claimant would need to prove that ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence, the damage would not have occurred. The Court of Appeal rejected this and found in favour of the claimant, stating that it was sufficient to establish that the negligent care that she received had made a material contribution to her weakened state.

Mr Bolam was treated for a psychiatric illness with ECT. There was a risk of convulsions and fracture. He was not warned of this, nor was he given muscle relaxants or physical restraint to prevent the convulsions. As a result, he sustained a fracture of the hip and brought an action in negligence, which failed.

The standard of care articulated was that a doctor would not be guilty of negligence if he acted in accordance with practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals skilled in that particular art.

A two-year-old boy with recurrent respiratory problems suffered severe brain damage during an attack of croup, and subsequently died. The case was essentially one of causation.

The case was dismissed by the House of Lords on grounds of causation. Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s obiter comments on the standard of care are important. In addition to the Bolam standard of a body of responsible doctors supporting the defendant’s action, this opinion should be able to withstand ‘logical analysis’.

Miss Chester underwent a spinal operation, which carried an inherent 1–2% risk of nerve damage. She was not warned about this. Although the operation was performed with due care and attention, she suffered nerve damage that resulted in partial paralysis.

The House of Lords ruled in her favour even though, by her own evidence, she would have undergone the same surgery at a future date had she been warned. The boundaries of causation were extended by establishing a causal link between negligent failure to warn and injury to the claimant.

The claimant sustained mesothelioma following negligent exposure to asbestos by several employers and it could not be proved on the balance of probabilities as to which employer’s negligence had led to the development of the condition.

The House of Lords held that all the employers who had negligently exposed the claimant to asbestos fibres should be liable, since they had all materially increased the risk of harm.

The claimant had a lump, which was diagnosed wrongly as benign. As a result, there was a delay in referral for treatment. This meant that the claimant’s 10-year survival rate reduced from 42% to 25%.

In order to succeed, a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities (more than 50%), that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury. There would be no recovery for loss of a chance of a prospect of a cure when the long-term result was uncertain.